Origen of Alexandria

[Vlad Benea]

Our next exam at Patristics (I'm in a Faculty of Theology here in Romania) will be about Origenes (don't know if that's the correct English spelling), and I started reading the works I could find translated in Romanian. I knew some things about hium before starting reading, among which that he was anathematized at the 5th Ecumenical Council, for his heteorodox oppinions, such as "apocatastasis". Upon beginning to read, I am bedazzled (is that a word?) by the almost 100% oppinions which are, if that's right to say, pro-Origenes.

I would like to ask you people what do you think, and what do you suggest would be the best books about him, as viewed by the Orthodox Church (because I couldn't find any Orthodox study about him, the best I have is Henry Crouzel's (a Jesuite priest) - "Origene")

Sorry,
Vlad

[Petros]

Have you read this article? "Origen and the apokatastasis":

http://www.monachos.net/patristics/origen_apokatastasis.html

[Owen Jones]

The Council went too far in my personal opinion. Origen is the tops. He reflects the incredible intelligence and commitment to Christ in the early Christian world. I'm not aware of any contemprorary Orthodox works on Origen. von Balthasar has a very good topical compendium with very minimal commentary.

Concerning his speculations on some kind of universal salvation, it has, in my opinion, an unassailable logic to it, but, alas, later hierarchs (a lawyer, Justinian), had less faith in the typical Christian to grasp that inner logic, and so condemned him, as if all of the Christians who found out about it would simply lapse into extreme immorality once they knew they would be saved anyway. Ironically, that's a lot closer to the current protestant situation in America where there is an absolute guarantee of salvation once you have recited a slogan. This leads to antinomianism.

Owen Jones

[John Wehling]

Owen and co.,

Christ is Risen!

I sympathize with your feelings about Origen, Owen, because I used to = feel the same way. In fact, to make a grand overstatement, I think many = converts to Orthodoxy (assuming you are a convert) have a certain love = or appreciation for Origen. And the truth is, he was a wonderful man = with a gifted mind who sought to bring the gospel to the very Hellenized = late-classical world.

It was not until I prepared a study on St Maximus the Confessor that I = realized, however, just how dangerous Origen's thought was for the = Church. His cosmology is fundamentally flawed and frankly non-Christian. = He posits a pre-eternal fall or lapse of necessary intelligent beings = (who would become angels, demons, and human souls) and it is this fall, = NOT God's eternal love and goodwill, which results in the creation of = the material world. This world is the environment into which these = lapsed intelligences fall in order to have a sort of gymnasium to work = out their salvation, which is itself viewed primarily as pure = intellectual (noetic) contemplation.

Of course, this image of the world as school of salvation is common in = the Fathers (see St Basil's Hexaemeron I, for one example), but here it = is set in a fundamentally different cosmological context of the world = created through the Logos and the Spirit, fallen in Adam, and restored = (potentially) through the same Logos in the flesh.

As far as the doctrine of apokatastasis, for Origen it was a necessary = corollary of his cosmology and his larger theological vision, which = dictated that "the end must be like the beginning." In this = too-Hellenistic a vision, the salvation of all was necessary for things = to "turn out right" in the end, for God to be God and the intelligent = beings to be intelligent beings, etc. The discrepancy between this view = and the fundamental Orthodox conviction of man's free-will (without = which God will not save man) is readily apparent.

It is true that Origen's condemnation in 553 was a radical action, but = the Church viewed it as necessary. St Sabas himself sought assistance = from the Emperor because of the prevalence Origenism in the = Palestine--this 300 years after Origen's death. Even after the = condemnation, however, Origenism remained alive within monasticism and = the spiritual theology of many, until St Maximus carefully and patiently = corrected it while maintaining some of its more Christian elements.

Personally, I admit there was a time when apokatastsis was very = appealing to me. In reality, however, it is just the other side of the = deterministic-predestinarian coin, isn't it? If all creatures will be = saved eventually, so much for free will, true hypostatic existence, and = the freedom to love or to reject God. Of course, none of us want any to = be lost. But we must preserve man's freedom to "lose himself" if he so = chooses, even as we preserve his ability to struggle toward God by grace = if he so chooses.

Peace, John

[Owen Jones]

I'm aware of this issues, John, but the real question is whether or not a Council should have condemned Origen and commissioned him to hell, rather than simply allow the corrections to be made, a la Maximos, in the life of the Church. Kind of like really trusting in the Holy Spirit to do its job. Also, what you have in Origen is a clear distinction he made between dogmatic and speculative theology. He did not intend for his speculations to be taken as dogma. He cannot be blamed for others who might have done so, anymore than Christ can be blamed for all the heresies and sins committed in His name.

I guess what I really have is a kind of fondness for the pre-conciliar Church. We want everything to be cut and dried today, everything certain. To me, that's an aggregious theological, moral error that's far more damaging to the faithful than issues surrounding cosmological speculations. Interestingly, when I try to explain Orthodoxy to American protestants, they basically identify it with liberalism! They cannot imagine a church which does not dot every "i" and cross every "t." They want everything laid out for them without having to do any heavy lifting, so they can have that certitude. And too many converts open proclaim that it's certitude that they are after when they become Orthodox. A pox on them.

Owen Jones

[John Wehling]

Owen writes:

"...the real question is whether or not a Council should have condemned = Origen and commissioned him to hell, rather than simply allow the = corrections to be made, a la Maximos, in the life of the Church. Kind of = like really trusting in the Holy Spirit to do its job."

I'm not sure I understand why the acts and decisions of a Council are = outside the scope of "the Holy Spirit doing its [I much prefer 'His', = forgive me] job." In fact, I think that the Church understands the = Councils to be just that. Clear back in Acts 15, when the Jerusalem = Council makes their decision regarding the Gentiles entry into the = Church, the Fathers of the Council send their decision to Antioch by = saying, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

I am not a "heresy hunter", looking for remnants of any sort of ancient = "-ism" underneath every rock. But the spiritual and historical reality = is that heresy ravages the Church and endangers the salvation of men, = women, and children. The Church, when confronted with such a threat, = cannot stand by and wait for the Holy Spirit to move in some subtle way, = or hope that a Maximus will come along, when the power and authority to = discern the Word of Truth and to bind and loose has been given to Her. = Speaking of Origenism specifically, it seems that it took both the 5th = Council and the work of Maximus to uproot Origenism from the Church, not = either one or the other alone.=20

Again Owen writes:

"I guess what I really have is a kind of fondness for the pre-conciliar = Church. We want everything to be cut and dried today, everything = certain. To me, that's an aggregious theological, moral error that's far = more damaging to the faithful than issues surrounding cosmological = speculations."

I agree with your assessment of Protestant fundamentalism and, with you, = loath this emphasis in the modern world on certainty. In fact, = fundamentalisms of every sort are a modern response to the modern search = for certainty, and as such are themselves modern phenomena (how many = times can one use the term "modern" in the same sentence?). Certainty is = a myth (excepting for the saints, perhaps), a Holy Grail of modern = science and philosophy up until a few years back.

Because of this, though, I question your connection of Councils and = Conciliar decisions with the modern search for certainty so typical of = P-ism. The Councils came about, as stated above, to deal with very real = threats to faith and life, and therefore salvation. I wonder (and = forgive me if this sounds accusatory, for I do not mean it that way: its = just a question that you are free to answer in the negative), in fact, = if your fondness for the pre-conciliar Church betrays a sort of = romanticism of history, a notion that things will work out in the end = without all the messy business of Councils, dogmas, creeds, and canons. = Again, I can sympathize with this feeling, but I cannot share it any = longer. History--and life in the Church this side of things--is messy = business.

Again, forgive me if this sounds accusatory, for I don't meant to be = that.

Peace, John

[Vlad Benea]

First, thank you for your messages.

Second, I would like to ask you also if the 5th Ecumenical Council anathematized Origen in person (as it did with say Theodore of Mopsuestia) or has it condemned only part (or all) of his works as heretic (as it did with Theodoret of Cyr).

It's strange Owen: first, in the Beginning patristics thread, you write the world no longer knows to approach the Fathers with humility, yet in your last mail on this thread, you have the dareness to make irony on the decisions of the 5th Council (a Council that the Fathers participated to and approved).

However, you are right in saying that the antenicean Fathers did not have everything cut and dry, and that many issues are not very clear concerning some of their dogmatic points, regarding them from postnicean theology.

I questioned oftenly about the rightness of condemning someone after their death (in fact, that was the main reason for which the 3rd Council did not condemn him, and for which the 4th did not condemn the nestorian theologians). This is the conclusion I reached (and I might be wrong): in the teachings of the Orthodox church, the man is judged twice, first right after death, when, based on his actions in life, he is put either in Hell or in Heaven, and second at the Final Judgement, when at the first Judgement will be added the consequences of his actions. Related to a man's being is his work (be it books, churches, or any other thing). We cannot separate the work of someone of his actions. So if the consequences will be added to the first judgement, then the consequences of Origen's work were quite devastating to the church, as John underlines in his previous message, that's why, I think, the Council is entitled to condemn someone after his death. Even though after his death a person can no longer do anything, his works, left on earth, can do many things for him (be it good or bad).

Now I know I was largely incoherent, perhaps redundant, but the reason is my "bad-knowing" of English.

Sorry.

One more thing: though I find it incredible comparing our Lord Jesus Christ with Origen, your comparison does not stand at an analysis: our Lord was flawless and made no mistakes; Origen, among other things, is the authour of some major heresies. I think there is quite a difference.

Vlad

[Owen Jones]

Discussions on Origen always spark strong feelings one way or another. But I think I'm on pretty firm ground in saying that Origen himself distinguished between his writings that were speculative and not intended to be taken as dogma, and those writings that were of a dogmatic nature. And I believe I am also on firm ground in saying that you cannot condemn a man for the way in which others misuse him. Christ being the foremost example of that problem. (He was, afterall, fully man). You can't blame Christ if people use his name in vain, and you cannot blame Origen for people who misunderstand, misrepresent, or abuse his ideas. And I think a close study of the history of so-called Origenism shows that it's a pretty complicated history of just that.

But I think one of the unfortunate legacies of the whole Origenist controversy is that today there is very little speculative thought in the Church on the part of those who are faithful to Orthodox dogma. All the speculation takes place among those politically leftist or secularist leanings. So we are to condemn all speculation because it is not dogmatic truth?

We need an Origen for our own day to write the equivalent of Contra Celsus. Orthodoxy is completely at a loss as to how to deal with "modernity." There have been some attempts, such as the slavophile movement, which was cut short by the communist revolution. But today there is a huge vacuum intellectually. What about the whole problem of a "secular" or a "progressivist" history - which is really the dominant theme of society these days? This kind of intellectual work has to done by the faithful, but it also has to be grounded in "hellenistic" or classical philosophy (Platonism as it's usually disparagingly called) which is a basic foundation of theology. Otherwise, we are left with dealing with the dominance of secular ideologies (which most of our faithful actually believe in more than the teachings of the Church), with pious platitudes.

As for the Councils, this is my own theologoumena, but there is a difference between them being guided by the Holy Spirit, and being infallible. (There is a solid tradition within Orthodoxy of theologoumana -- of speaking, not ex cathedra, but nevertheless having insights that are worthy of consideration -- [not speaking in defense of any opinions of mine being of any value, but simply the principle of it].

[Theron Mathis]

Here are a couple of my thoughts and questions on Origen:

1. The anathemas of the Council did not codemn Origen the man, but a list of 15 of his opinions. The anathema against the man Origen was by Justinian. Did the Council adopt Justinian's full anathemas or was this merely a legal decree by an emporer?

2. St. Basil and St. Gregory seemed to love much of what Origen taught because there was some wheat among the chaff. In fact, they compiled a book of his teachings in a volume called the "Philokalia" (not to be confused with the Athonite volume).

3. It seems to me that one of the greatest errors of Origen was his full embrace of Platonism. One example would be his interpretation of the purpose of asceticism. Much of his writings suggest that the material body is evil because it is material and only the spirit is good. Therefore the ascetical struggle is an attempt to destroy the material so that the spiritual may live. However Orthodoxy would affirm the holiness of matter, but relegate asceticism not to the destruction of matter, but the controlling of the passions.

Just a couple thoughts.

God Bless,

Theron Mark

[Vlad Benea]

Owen, I suggest you read the article of Matthew, the link presented above by Petros (it's the first Orthodox oppinion I see, a great article, which I will use entirely, with Matthew's permission of course, at my exams. Because our teacher, who is pro-Origen (if that's a right term), made us read Crouzel's "Origen", but did not point us anything to counter-balance his oppinion). Read it, and you will find answer to all your "firm grounds". Heresy is, no matter it's excuses, still heresy.

You didn't seem to have understood my analysis of your comparison (it might be my bad English, I admit): Our Lord, though fully a man, made no mistakes. Therefore the fault of the people who misused His teachings is entirely theirs. Origen, is, you must admit, the author, amopng other bad things, of some heresies. Therefore, the blame for his misusal belongs some part to him, some part to those who misused his oppinions. And I think most of the part belongs to him.

I don't think that the Church is "completely at a loss as how to deal with modernity", but I might not be the one to answer this oppinion, as I lack the means entirely. I ask for Matthew, if he pleases and if he finds appropiate and necessary, to do so.

Good informations John, was not aware of them, thank you. Can't answer any of your questions though.

Your's in Christ,
Vlad

[Owen Jones]

Vlad, I frankly don't admit that Origen was the author of some bad heresies. Now, I am not an Origen expert, but my assessment of the whole controversy is as I've stated it. Origen never questioned any essential/established Orthodox dogma, such as the divinity of Christ, etc. At the time of Origen, really for most of the time prior to Nicea, the entire Church was virtually di-theistic. So are you going to condemn every Christian prior to Nicea? He made the distinction himself between those writings that were of a speculative nature and those that were not. That satisfies me and should have satisfied the council, it seems to me, but then, as you say, it's not humble of me to question anything a council has said or done.

Regarding the comparison between Christ and Origen, it seems to me to be heretical to say that Christ is so utterly foreign to us that we cannot possibly make any comparison or analogies between Him and ourselves. I know many people who blame God for their problems. Valid, logical, unholy, or no, many, many people do that. Now, that's an analogy to the Origen situation. It's not a perfect analogy. It's not an exact analogy. I would probably be criticized by my old logic professor for making a weak analogy. But that's all it was, an analogy. It simply is not fair to blame a person when others, out of stupidity, venality, or whatever, misuse that person's writings. There are examples of this throughout history.

As for modernity, Orthodoxy, etc. You obviously live in a very traditional Orthodox culture. There are what, three or four of them? In Greece, Orthodoxy has an official, established status but it certainly has no social, societal impact beyond those more traditional locales in Greece. It is not a national cultural force. It is a political force to be reckoned with in Greece, but it hardly has an impact in terms of shaping the trends in the culture.

In the U.S., Orthodoxy is strictly a phenomenon of ethnic immigration. It's cultural societal impact is zero. It is trending toward episcopalianism and that trend is inevitable. If there were a massive spiritual revival in the U.S., it's hard to see how Orthodoxy would have any impact on it. Russia is seeing a spiritual revival of sorts, which is very encouraging, but there is probably far more growth there among protestants and pentacostals. Of course, official Church figures count all Russians as Orthodox!

There are many, many millions of "conservative" protestants in the U.S., but even they have virtually no impact on America's current historical, social, cultural development. The U.S. is, for all intents and purposes, an officially atheistic state that tolerates private religious belief -- up to a limited point. And it's getting worse. But the pragmatic issues beg a deeper question, and that is the theory that people on a mass level can live without God. And the consequent theory that every modern state is built upon. That is the dominant ideology, it's a spiritual pathology that creates widespread psychosis, and the Church has little or nothing to say that would compellingly, intelligently address that. the primary figures in the West who have attempted to rationally question the pressuppositions of modernity/liberalism and totalitarianism have been a handful of people trained in classical philosophy. The Church is a bystander to all of this.

And I think that is an important issue. What is Orthodoxy? If it is just another private, personal choice on one's path to salvation, then, there is no problem with Modernity and secularism, as far as the Church is concerned. We can look at the world and pity it and proudly pat ourselves on the back because we found the true faith. But if there is more than that in Orthodoxy, then there is an inherent problem between Orthodoxy and moderntiy. And there is no Orthodox thinker who has made an ounce of influence in the past five hundred years outside of Orthodox confines. I'm not blaming that on the Origen problem! Heaven forbid. But Orthodoxy, i.e. Christianity, refuted the presuppositions of pagan society, intellectually, and at some point, for the Orthodox Church to have integrity, it's going to have to do the same in the so-called modern era.

[Owen Jones]

Dear Theron,

Thanks for your clarification on the condemnations of Origen personally and some of his writings. Also, for your comments about asceticism. Asceticism, in my opinion, will have to be the foundation for a Christian revival, and so it is important to get it right, since there are many forms of asceticism, and theories and practices.

Was St. Symeon the Sylite Orthodox? Christian? I have heard scholars say he was not. He went too far. His was a gnostic asceticism that saw the flesh as evil. But if that's true, then it would appear that Christ was a gnostic, at least for the period of time that he punished his body in the desert. I'm being rhetorically glib to make a point. forgive me, but I'm not very theologically precise in my arguments.

As for Plato, the only person more abused and misunderstood is Christ. (Marxists say that their man was not understood, and a few Nazi skinheads say their man was misunderstood, but hopefully we can dispense with those arguments pretty easily).

While it is evident that there were pre-Christian gnostic ascetics, Socrates and Plato were not among them. However, the portrait we have of Socrates is that of an extreme ascetic, who could stay awake for days in a state of supreme meditation, totally courageous in combat, etc. But Plato's portrait of Socrates is also that of a deified man or of a god made man. That is very clear in his writings, but especially in the Symposium. This is merely one of the reasons why Plato was so influential among the FAthers, not to mention that virtually all of the great intellectual giants of early Christianity were educated in the Platonic academy tradition. (btw, did you know that, other than the Bible, Plato's speculations in cosmoloy were the most often quoted text by the Fathers?)

Back to Origen, briefly. I had a prof in seminary (not, alas, an Orthodox seminary) who stated that Origen did not take the body seriously (alluding to his self-mutilation). My rejoinder was that he took the body a bit too seriously for my taste! (Can we be humorous about some things???). But I see nothing inherently gnostic about Origen's asceticism, and certainly nothing that can be described as gnostic in Plato. Just the opposite. He was the anti-gnostic. As has been pointed out, becoming a eunich for Christ was a solid, valid tradition in the early Church. But the bottom line is extreme self-denial. There is nothing necessarily masochistic about it or inherently gnostic about extreme self-denial. It does not necessarily imply a theory that creation is evil. For that you would have to look at some pattern in an ascetic's thinking that would betray this.

Also, the term gnosis is quite frequently seen in the Fathers, especially the desert Fathers. It is used in an entirely Orthodox way.

[Vlad Benea]

Though I don't have much time, nor strength, I will atempt to briefly answer sonme of your oppinions, Owen.

First of all, I don't know if you read the article I pointed to you, as it clearly proves that, among others, Origen's apokatasasis is a heretical point of view (be it dogma or theologumena, or whatever else). That means: non-Orthodox.

Now regarding the condemnation of every christian prior to Nicea: first, I don't know neither if all of them were ditheistic, nor do I know what you base your oppinion on. BUT, not every christian prior to Nicea, wrote their oppinions down for the future generations to come, writing which, in my oppinion, represents a great responsibility, and for which writing one will have to answer of at the Final Judgement. Secondly, not everybody prior to Nicea were theologians: point is, even though a normal peasant here in Romania knows nothing about say Filioque, it doesnt mean he wont go to heaven. The problem with Filioque is to those responsible of knowing it. (do excuse my English, it's giving me a lot of trouble).

Thirdly, I didn't say it is utterly foreign to make a comparison with Christ. Read again, more careful, please. It might be again my English.

Four. About modernity. The teachings of the Church are, now and forever, the same. The same teachings have been taught by it for 2 thousand years now. Should the Church change it's teachings because the world can't and will not comprehend them? It is not a wonder that the Orthodox faith has a rather small impact in modern society, even in the countries in which it is majoritary. I don't have the English translation of the Bible, nor do I know where this quote is for, but: "The world hates you, because it first hated Me". I think this is rather a sign of the times, that the faith of more and more people is "chilling". Furthermore, the Church does not talk to masses, it talks to persons. And every person should be approached in a different manner. I know I was largely incoherent, and did not finish the point, but was this much I could do.

Five. I do not know what you mean with "there is no Orthodox thinker who has made an ounce of difference in the past five hundred years". Me, who was an atheist (Lord forgive me), was converted by Saint Silouan the Athonite, who died in 1938. I think that's one ounce of difference.

Moving on to your second message.

I don't mean to get into an arguement regarding Plato, as I don't know many things about him. Just to mention that he regards the body as a prison for the soul. The same view was taken by the gnostics, don't know if directly from him (it is true that the term gnosis is taken by some Fathers, as it means knowledge, though mostly by the non-Orthodox ones, like Clement from the theologians, and Evagrius from the desert "Fathers"). The bad gnostics. The heretical ones. And to that oppinion of the gnostics Origen pays some tribute. I just read, in Crouzel's work which is deeply pro-Origen, a statement saying basically: "Jesus assumed our bodily nature, which is, by its nature, impure". I don't think that is the Orthodox attitude towards the body.Again I know I was uncoherent.

One other observation. On what do you base your statement: "As has been pointed out, becoming a eunich for Christ was a solid, valid tradition in the early Church"? Condemned by law since Hadrian (117-132), self-mutilation was almost unanimously discouraged among the Church members, and this in fact one of the reasons for which Demetrios "exiled" Origen to Cesareea.

Vlad

[John Wehling]

I have to agree with Vlad when he says that teachers will be held to a = higher standard of judgment. In fact, this is exactly what St James = writes in James 3:1: "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, = for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness." = Origen's distinction (I would be glad to know a reference for this) = between dogma and speculation is not some sort of "get out of jail free" = card that allows him to say whatever he pleases under the cloak of = theolegoumenon. When anybody puts an idea or an opinion "out there," in = the world or the Church, that idea will have consequences for which that = person is responsible. "By your words you will be justified and by your = word you will be condemned."

I would venture a guess that this whole distinction between dogma and = speculative theology, or theology and theolegoumenon, has more to do = with modern critical approaches to patristics than with the thought of = the Fathers themselves. I would be happy to be wrong about this, but I = would be surprised to see such a distinction--whether in those terms or = not doesn't matter.

John

[John Wehling]

Woops. I meant to say, at the end of that last post, "I would be surprised to see such a distinction in the Fathers."

Sorry,
John

[Vlad Benea]

I would like to ask if any of you knows a summary(be it short or extensive) of Origen's "De principiis" on the net.

Thank you,
Vlad

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

As Owen mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, discussion on Origen do, indeed, tend to kindle up strong opinions, whatever their context. They have been doing this for close on 1,900 years, so it is no surprise that they are doing so here.

I'd like to comment for the moment on just one point which is of extreme importance for this discussion:

The differentiation between dogmatic and speculative theology. To dogmatize is to declare truths about God, His economy, the Church, man, etc. It is to proclaim 'the way things are'. False dogma is heresy: it proclaims the way things aren't as the way they are, and thus speaks a lie. It is proper that the Church should condemn false dogma, for the Church proclaims only the truth.

Speculation, on the other hand, is conjecture about how things might be. It is the admission of limited knowledge, and 'educated guesswork' or reflection upon what greater realities might be indicated by the knowledge one does possess. It does not actually proclaim anything, it merely suggests possibilities. When astronomers look at the fact that water exists on this planet, for example, and figure in standard elements of probability, they speculate that water may also exist on other planets. This is not the same as saying water does exist on other planets. It is to say that it might.

This distinction between dogma and speculation is of the utmost importance in addressing Origen. Many of the views which the Church would condemn as heretical, are introduced by Origen himself with such clauses as, "Now, I do not wish to speak dogmatically on this, but I will reflect on how things might be...". This is unquestionably the vocabulary of speculation. We all speculate like this, to some degree or another, because we simply don't know all there is to know about God (nor can we).

With Origen, the question becomes: do his speculations 'go too far'. Most Christians would agree that the ideas he presents in his speculations are, indeed, 'too far' beyond the mark -- if expressed as dogma, they would certainly be heresy. But did Origen ever express them as such? There is fair evidence to suggest that, on the majority of issues, he did not. Can Origen, then, be condemned for his speculations? -- for his guesses? One ought to be careful before answering too quickly: if the answer is 'yes', then there is not a human being alive who should not be formally anathematized by the Church, whose condemnations the Church should sing out each year for eternity.

This is the problem with Origen. Many of the things he said are heretical, without question (and thus the views expressed in my article), but these heresies are speculations. Origen himself reflected on the implausability of many of them; but he was a man who loved to think and loved to write, who believed that the struggle of speculation led to many wrong conclusions, but also led to some that were right. In 'speculating oneself into heresy', a person can often discover orthodox truth very clearly (in the same way that running into the end of a dead-end street teaches you clearly not to drive down that street again).

If Origen has an over-arching flaw, it is perhaps that he thought and wrote too much. In an era when people took the written and spoken word as 'dogma' just for the fact of having been written or spoken, the task of speculation was problematic. Origen was a thinker, but many people and groups took his thoughts as his 'laws' or mandates, and no end of trouble began. The Origenists took his speculations as dogma, and thus preached radical heresy. Origen himself sat and pondered -- he asked impossible questions because they fascinated him; he came up with impossible answers because this is generally what one gets for impossible questions. But if speculating, if pondering and thinking, if making errors in conception as we gradually grow into a right and proper knowledge of the Truth, is itself to earn the rank of heresy, the the greatest of saints and the most meagre of the faithful are alike all heretics.

There are things to be condemned in Origen. Many teachings of 'Origenism' are not, however, among them. If we can make this distinction, then Origen will get a much fairer hearing.

XB, Matthew

[John Wehling]

Matthew,

Your post on the difference between dogma and speculation is very clear. My question, however, is whether this is primarily a modern, critical distinction rather than a Patristic one? Even if it is not Patristic it might very well be helpful, as might be, say, the modern, critical (and largely Western, though I hate to introduce the dubious "W" word into the discussion) distinction between biblical theology and systematic theology.

(I will resist the urge to digress on the topic of the tendency of modern critical studies to specialize, and thus to atomize everything to the point that it is impossible to see a big picture…)

If the distinction between dogma and speculation is primarily modern, I think we ought to be very careful about introducing it into our study of the Fathers or of assuming that they necessarily held to such a distinction either explicitly or implicitly. Yes, Origen held to it. And yes, he was very influential on the Tradition in many ways, positive as well as negative. But he is not a Father of the Church. Are there Fathers who explicitly acknowledge such a distinction, or are there situations or writings where their assumption of it is apparent?

Peace,
John

[Vlad Benea]

First of all, I would like to finish with what I began. Thanks do this discussion I managed to get a 10 in my exam (which is the best grade http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif). So thank you, all.

Matthew, though I must admit I was hoping on another response, I did enjoy both your article and your message.

Now to explaining the discussion we had: I started from what Owen first stated: "The Council went, in my oppinon, too far". That is what I picked upon. What I mean to say is that what I tried to do was to defend, in my poor way, I know, the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council, and by this the decisions of the Church. Perhaps I was wrong in many points, but the intention was still good (one might say, like Origen's http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif ). Are we, in fact, allowed, not to judge, but to condemn the decisions of an Ecumenical Council? I say not. Because in fact, this is one of the decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council: Origen is a heretic.

One more concern: Can we actually judge Origen better now, 1750 years after his death, than the Holy Fathers, who were only 300 years away (still much, I know, but the majority of his works were lost since) of his death. It is true that many of our Holy Fathers quote and use Origen a lot. But all who speak about him said that he had many "unhealthy" (this belongs to St. Basil the Great) ideas.

And the last: I read in an article by G. Dorival (I think that's his name) that some Catholic theologians (amongst which Crouzel, etc.) fight for lifting the condemnations of the 5th Ecumenical Council, and furthermore canonizing him as a saint. What do you think about that?

In Christ,
Vlad

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Vlad,

Congratulations on the mark received for your exam. Based on your discussions here, I have no doubt that it was well deserved.

Please do not take my clarification of the doctrine/speculation issue, above, as a blanket wave of support for all things Origen. You will probably have gleaned from my previous remarks, as well as from my paper on Origen, that I would certainly be against canonizing him as a saint -- which the Church has (wisely) never done. I am also not against the anathemas pronounced against Origenism, i.e., those ideas specifically condemned by the Synod, which had grown out of misapplications of his discussions. As has been pointed out by others on this thread, those anathemas are not against Origen himself, but against certain teachings attributed to him.

My personal views (for as extremely little as they matter) are that Origen's innocent speculations took him too far, and he fell in love, to some degree, with the conceptualisations on which he dwelt. His notion of the apokatastasis, which he originally formulated as an idea/speculation, seems to have influenced him too profoundly in the end. There is nothing wrong with letting one's mind wander into speculations on divine things; but if all one does is speculate, one's grasp of reality begins to be loosened. I think this is what happened with Origen.

But those are merely my opinions. In more objective terms, the reality seems to be that people are either too eager to make Origen more or less Orthodox than he was. Either he was a saint, or he was a demon. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. As it were, it is possible to uphold both the anathemas of the Council, the condemnations of Origenistic teachings which conflict with the Church, and even to admit of doctrinal flaws in Origen's substantiated thought, without blanketly reducing him to a 'mere heretic'. Perhaps the Cappadocian Fathers are our best example in this, for while they could strongly criticise Origen for certain of his theological ideas, they could nonetheless readily appreciate others -- and there is absolutely no question that all of the Cappadocians (Sts Basil and Gregory of Nyssa most dramatically) were influenced by Origen.

XB, Matthew

[Vlad Benea]

I was curious about those condemnations of the 5th Ecumenical Council, so I decided to search for them myself. Here is the 11th Capitula of the Holy Synod:

"If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema."

Thank you for your warm message, Matthew, as well as for your congratulations.
In Christ,
Vlad

[Justin]

Perhaps some think that what happened with Origen was unjust, or think that we should be "easy" on him. When considering what Origen himself said about heretics and their teachings, though, I don't think this would be the proper course to take (an argument could be made--though will not be made here--that defending Origen is standing in the way of Jesus [cf Matt. 16:22-23] by hindering what the prophetic words of Matt. 16:18 promise). Origen said that:


...each one of those who are the authors of any evil opinion has become the architect of a certain gate of Hades; but those who co-operate with the teaching of the architect of such things are servants and stewards, who are the bond-servants of the evil doctrine which goes to build up impiety. - Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book 12, 12 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm#P7923_1684425)[/URL]

I don't think anyone (except maybe a Catholic apologist talking about Pope Honorius 1) would try to downplay the signifigance and weight of being anathematized at an ecumenical council. Was this council wrong in it's words? Is this what we are to say of those inspired men? Origen believed that:


...neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail [...] but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it. - Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book 12, 11 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm#P7923_1684425)

Unfortunately, (as shown in the above post by Vlad), Origen himself had become a "gate of hell" through heretical teachings. It is rather sorrowing that the words written by Origen (unwittingly) speak about himself as much as others:


Now, if you attend to the saying, 'Many, I say unto you, shall seek to enter in and shall not be able,' you will understand that this refers to those who boast that they are of the church, but live weakly and contrary to the word. Of those, then, who seek to enter in, those who are not able to enter will not be able to do so, because the gates of Hades prevail against them [...] Notwithstanding, these gates [of hell] have a certain power by which they gain the mastery over some who do not resist and strive against them - [URL="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm#P7923_1684425"] Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book 12, 11-12 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm#P7909_1680344)

Origen did indeed seem to have good intentions, but good intentions are not enough. We as human beings sin in ignorance, and need forgiveness for such sins (asking for such in prayers and confession); so to with affirming heresy, ignorance is not a full-proof way to escape. Origen obviously had what could be labeled "evil opinions," can we really then disagree with what councils and saints have said about him and his teachings?

[Owen Jones]

Dear Justin,

Here's mere paltry theologoumena on the subject you have just addressed.

I don't abide by the doctrine of infallibility. The Romans have their doctrine of infallibility (the Pope, when speaking on matters of doctrine, officially on behalf of the Church); the Protestants have their doctrine of infallibility (Holy Scripture, i.e. each individual's personal interpretation of it); and Orthodoxy has its doctrine of infallibility (the Ecumenical Councils). It was one of the Councils that declared itself infallible. The fifth perhaps? I don't recall. I personally don't buy it. Inspired? Yes. Infallibile? No.

Also, There are many issues that councils have not addressed that are absolutely essential, because there is room for disagreement or emphasis in the Church. The Atonement, for example. Their is no definitive conciliar statement on the Atonement. And yet it is a most essential Biblical doctrine, and one on which many people disagree.

As for Origen, I seriously doubt that anyone in this discussion group comes close to understanding the complexity of Origen, or the issues involved, or come close to the holiness necessary to discern the true nature of those issues. I personally have a gut feeling that Origen, and by implication, the Church, was done an injustice. I do not understand why speculation regarding an ultimate reconciliation with God conflicts at all with a doctrine of rewards and punishment, or Christ's teachings. The condemnation of Origen seems to me to reflect super-correct lawyerly language. But I could be totally wrong. Hey, there is no eucharistic discipline today is there? So I could be totally heretical and it simply wouldn't matter, would it?

Which really brings the issue home today. The issues today are all inverted. We have a stultified, ossified, petrified version of Christianity passing as Orthodoxy -- a few bright spots here and there to be sure -- but generally uninteresting enough to produce an Origen or a controversy important enough to have a council. And there is certainly no ORthodox thinker, or hierarch in the world who has an impact beyond his tidy little immediate following, nor has there been such a person within recent historical memory. If we could only produce an Origen for our own day, heretic or no heretic, it would point people to the central importance of theology in everyone's lives, not just in thelives of Orthodox believers. All questions are at root theological ones, but even our theologians don't know what theology is. What you and I are engaging in on this network is not theology! It's just uninformed opinion.

[Vlad Benea]

It is my polemical nature (and yours) that makes this discussion drag along like this, with no real outcome. However, I think I have to write some of my oppinions still.

Theologumena are needed only when the Church's teachings on a subject are not clear. If the Church has a dogma regarding something, there is no need for any other theologumena to be put forth. And the Church has a teaching regarding infallibility. You are wrong saying that Orthodoxy has the Seven Councils as infallible. The Orthodox Church has itslef as infallible, as a direct consequence of the fact that our Lord Jesus Christ is its Head. Therefore a Council (be it Ecumenical or Local) is not by itself infallible, but by its "acceptance" by the Church. Sure the authority and importance of the Ecumenical Councils is far greater that the authority and importance of the local ones. So the fact that the Church has accepted and assumed the teachings and decisions of the 5th Ecumenical Council make it be infallible.

Regarding Origen: I think it is not for us to understand the complexity of Origen's thought, or to have the holiness for it (I am not sure as to how much we need it, either). We have a Holy Council to point us what to think of Origen, and what the Church thinks of Origen. (That is by the way the oppinion of Pr. Dumitru Staniloae, one of Romania's greatest theologians).

You say you don't understand how the final reconciliation conflicts with Christ's teachings. Of course, the discussion can be complicated (thus the excellent article of Matthew). Here are some simpler facts though: "It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire." Mt 18,8
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" Mt 25,41. ...

The Church has crystalized its teachings, mostly as a response to heresies. With the passing of centuries, the Orthodox faith became clearer and more structured. The last "clarification", as some say, was done by St. Gregory Palamas. Since then, there was no need for further "development" (I know that's an improper term, my English gives me big troubles). However, I am not satisfied with what I wrote in the last paragraph. I think Matthew would be best to say what I mean, especially since I think he agrees with me on this one. (though I might be wrong).

But what I think is more important is to underline this, that the Orthodox faith talks to souls (especially now, when its doctrine is fully formulated, no need for further speculation being needed... largely). If I can gain one soul for salvation (not the lives of Orthodox believers, but one single soul), I have gained more than gaining the whole world. And this is the way I think the Orthodox can make a difference. If everyone becomes a true Christian where he is. Then I think there will be no need for any Origen. As St. Seraphim of Sarov says: "Gain the Holy Spirit and thousands of people around you shall gain their salvation". So I think there is no need for longing for an Origen to appear to save the day, but rather longing for us to gain the Holy Spirit.

I do agree with you on your last oppinion though. It is not theology what we are doing here. Especially me. I am the one who only says and does nothing. This is true, unfortunately. Pray for me, and I do mean that, that maybe I start doing only part of what I'm saying.

Forgive me for the sake of our Lord,
Vlad

[Richard McBride]

“If we could only produce an Origen for our own day, heretic or no heretic,...”

He of “Infallibility”, the Pope himself, is said to believe that the one who follows himself may fit your description; and if not him, then surely his successor -- who will be called, AntiChrist.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Owen Jones]

What we need Vlad are not people to re-write theology but to confront the world intellectual crisis. The Church has surrendered its intellect to the "modern" secular world, and resorted to simple piety as its only justification. Simple piety -- or sobriety -- is a pre-requisite, one might say, to salvation. But some must be called upon to also deal with the intellectual confusion in the world. That's part of the Great Commission.

This is a point which, I think should stand or fall on its own, regardless of my personal piety or whether or not I have wrong theological opinions.

The reason I say that the Church could use another Origen today, which bears repeating, is that the Church has not adequately responded to the intellectual challenges of "modernity." The Church has no integrated scientific, philosophical, theological, social theories on a par with that of the early Church that was able to challenge Greco-Roman culture, regardless of whether or not there were some doctrinal controversies involved. And, frankly, I don't fear some doctrinal controversies. If they arise, and if we have confidence in the Holy Spirit, then they will be resolved rightly. What is the fear?

OK, here's my theologoumena on historical events for the past 500 years. God is putting His Church to the test. So far, it doesn't look so good. The Church is utterly incapable of winning minds. It can win simple hearts. But it's not very good at winning minds. I think it is a case of false humility not to recognize that and admit it. That's half the battle.

[Justin]

Owen


I don't abide by the doctrine of infallibility.

Then I suppose we shan't get very far in discussion, friend (since we have different views on this foundational issue). I realise that some Orthodox (and some Catholics, like Kung) disbelieve in infallibility, but I'm afraid that I don't. I'm not quite sure where this teaching comes from, could you help me understand where this is taught in the Fathers? If I am wrong (about infallibility) I will certainly change immediately, but since I've not seen a case from Scripture or the Fathers, I'll have to continue as I've been taught, as (for example) stated in "The Confession of Dositheus":


...the Catholic Church, as never having spoken, or speaking from herself, but from the Spirit of God--who being her teacher, she is ever unfailingly rich--it is impossible for her to in any wise err, or to at all deceive, or be deceived; but like the Divine Scriptures, is infallible, and hath perpetual authority [...] We believe to be members of the Catholic Church all the Faithful, and only the Faithful; who, forsooth, having received the blameless Faith of the Saviour Christ, from Christ Himself, and the Apostles, and the Holy Ecumenical Synods, adhere to the same without wavering... - Decree 2, 11 (http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html)

You said in another post that God was "putting His Church to the test," but I don't think that's accurate. The world puts the Church "to the test," as does Satan. Certainly God allows the testing, he doesn't immediately drop the correct answers in our laps every time a problem pops up. And perhaps it can even be said that God tests his Church as he tests his children. Yet, we must also say that Christ is the head of the Church, and Jesus Christ himself promised that his Church would not fail, and that heresies, called gates of hades by our Lord, would not prevail against his Church; certainly this includes modern heresies (false ecumenism, modernism, etc.)

You said that "the Church is uttery incapable of winning minds". I find quite the opposite to be the case: converts that I've met are (on average) far more intelligent and theologically learned than I've seen in other Christian "groups" (and I was a Bible Studies Major for a while in a Protestant College, so I'm not speaking wholly from what I've seen "from the inside looking out"). Stamping out modernism and (false) ecumenism will not happen overnight: indeed we should not expect it to. There were Arians, Marcionites, etc. around hundreds of years after the heresies were condemned and "dealt with" by God and His Church. The fact that heresies still exist to this day in varying forms does not imply that the Church did not properly address them, it rather shows us the tenacity of Satan, and the unfortunate consequences of living in a fallen world. My patron saint, Justin Popovich, dealt with some of the things I've seen you mention (in regards to things the Church is not supposedly addressing). He wasn't the first voice to talk about these things, and he won't be the last. If you're looking for a quick fix or a Gregory the Theologian to pop out of the wood work, though, you'll probably be let down.


As for Origen, I seriously doubt that anyone in this discussion group comes close to understanding the complexity of Origen, or the issues involved, or come close to the holiness necessary to discern the true nature of those issues.

I agree, that's why I've accepted what has been handed down to me rather than trying to figure it out for myself.


Which really brings the issue home today. The issues today are all inverted. We have a stultified, ossified, petrified version of Christianity passing as Orthodoxy -- a few bright spots here and there to be sure -- but generally uninteresting enough to produce an Origen or a controversy important enough to have a council.

It's odd that you say that (as you say it) since the attempts to organise another Ecumenical council are themselves a controversy within the Church. Also, how many saints came out of 18th-20th century Russia alone? More than a "few bright spots," and that's but one part of the Church. I'm not exactly sure what you expect to find, friend. Even Saint John Chrysostom's Church was half full on Sundays! The problem is not producing saints and great thinkers, the problem is recognizing them and allowing them to change our lives. We ignored the original Saint John Chrysostom, the vast majority of people don't even know about the "new Chrysostom" (Nikolai Velimirovich)! We live in an age of Mass Printings and Internet Theology; we can find out about virtually anything we want, but our minds are going to fast to actually sit down and understand what God is trying to show us. The Church isn't moving too slow, it's moving in God's time: it just seems slow because we are moving too fast!


What you and I are engaging in on this network is not theology! It's just uninformed opinion.

Indeed; the thing that scares me, friend, is that you are not trying to conform your opinion to what the Church teaches, but are instead trying to transform what the Church teaches according to your own opinion (regarding your position on Origen). Please forgive me.

Justin

[Owen Jones]

There is a lot of false humility in the Church, justin.

[Owen Jones]

Somebody above said that only Satan puts people to the test. I was just wondering...does that mean it wasn't really God who told Abraham to sacrifice his son, but Satan?

[Justin]

Owen,

I do not know who it was that said "only Satan puts people to the test," perhaps you could show by quotation who said this?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen recently wrote:


The reason I say that the Church could use another Origen today, which bears repeating, is that the Church has not adequately responded to the intellectual challenges of "modernity." The Church has no integrated scientific, philosophical, theological, social theories on a par with that of the early Church that was able to challenge Greco-Roman culture, regardless of whether or not there were some doctrinal controversies involved. And, frankly, I don't fear some doctrinal controversies. If they arise, and if we have confidence in the Holy Spirit, then they will be resolved rightly. What is the fear?

This is an interesting comment, and this is not the first time I have heard it. Take for a moment as given that Origen taught some things heretical, that he stirred up substantial controversy, that at least on some levels his condemnation was acceptible: nonetheless, this man forced Christianity to think in a way that provided it with an incredible impetus. For three hundred years (and beyond) after his death, there is nary a theologian in the Christian world (especially the East) who was not influenced, to some degree or another, by his thought. The Cappadocian Fathers, pillars of doctrinal orthodoxy, were all three immensely indebted to him. Even where they disagreed with his reflection, that inflection inspired them to ponder the truth.

One thing can be said for Origen: he was not afraid to take on the challenges posed to intellectual thought by some elements of Christian doctrine. In attempting to answer them, he may often have been wrong. The Church did what the Church will do, given the guidance of Christ and the Spirit, and corrected his error. But at least Origen was thinking. In the present day, too much of Christianity is willing to sit on its laurels while the modern world 'proves' religion false, irrelevant, unhealthy, illogical. Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius and the great Fathers of that era would never have stood for such passivity of the mind. God has granted rational thought to His creatures.

XB, Matthew

[Vlad Benea]

Once again I was wrong in hoping that Matthew would agree with me.

But let us not drift away from the subject at hand. I do agree that we need deep thinkers nowadays, ones to integrate the social, philosophical and (espacially) scientifical discoveries. Saying that we don't have them is a mistake, as far as I'm concern. Giving Origen as the example for it is again, if not a mistake, then at least not the best of choices.

Perhaps we are not able to see the importance of the greatest thinkers of "modern" Orthodoxy, neither their impact. Also, most of them are unknown. Take for example Fr. Arsenios Boca. He was a monk here in Romania, who died in 1989. It is very probable that he was, under the modern definition, a genius. Finishing medicine, theology, arts and the Conservatory, he became a monk at Sambata de Sus Monastery, where he taught students the premises of "Orthodox Genetics". There is a great book, the courses of that seminary which he held (afterwards, he was constantly harassed and imprisoned by the Communist Regime), which is a genial attempt in explaining the genetic (!) reasons for the transmission of flaws and qualities from parents to children. I am talking about pride, greed, etc. (it is very hard for me to express in English again). He is about to be canonized as Saint. Among other gifts he had the gift of kardiognosis, being very numerous accounts when he both predicted the future of people and also revealed their pasts. Not to mention the numerous healings. He seems to be the most important figure of Romania's Orthodoxy is the last century (XX). However, I don't think he is known by more than 1% of the Romanians (which are 86% Orthodox).

I don't mention Pr. Seraphim Rose, who explains great in my oppinion, the flaws of Evolutionism (I was myself a "fanatic" adept of Evolutionism - was going to study Paleontology).

And the list could go on and on.

But there is a great setback. Whereas in Origen time's, mind and heart were not separated (or at least not the way they are now), thus everybody who had a speculative mind being able to understand and influence the oppinions of that era, nowadays, it is impossible even to begin theorizing of say science, unless studying for a whole lifetime sometimes, thus not leaving you any time of taking care of your soul. I know I didn't express myself right again. What I mean to say it is much harder now to be a saint and a scientist, than it was back then. Were it not for Fr. Arsenios, I would have said it was impossible.

That's all now (I am very stressed by this exam in History of the Church I have on Wednesday), if there's anything else I think of, I'll get back.

Pray for me,
Vlad

[Moses Anthony]

There's a man in this city who has a Thd, who a couple of years ago made a derogatory statement about the Orthodox position on the 'bloood of Jesus'. Yesterday in the weekly broadcast of his sermons, he made a point with which the Orthodox agree: "It is through the Chruch that the wisdom and grace of God is made manifest to the world". I mention that here as it seems to me to apply to Owens charge of the church not intellectually confront -ing the "modernity" of today's culture.

I've only been Orthodox for four years, so I'm not aware of all the 'thinkers' within the Church. I've read some of Vladimir Lossky, Schmemman, Matthew the Poor, Brianchianov, (and the learned gentleman who penned the five volume tome about the development of Orthodox doctrine, whose name I can't recall). It could possibly be that some of those who are held to be of great intellect may vary from one jurisdiction to another, but that's not the point here, which seems to me to be that: "The Church IS the pillar and suport of the truth".

There are few issues that has not been dealt with by the Church at large, i.e, Ecumenical Councils, which we face today. A doctor in Houston may be able to answer the bio-medical question from the Orthodox perspective. However; the truths known about God and culture by such worthies as Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, St. Paul, St. John the Theologian, are the same which the Councils set before us centuries ago. We need not be ashamed if the 'culture' seems so modern, when held against the ageless truth of the Lord Jesus. If the Church is the "pillar and support of the truth" through which the truth of Christ is made known to the world, then it is the truth of Christ which is the focus here.

So what if science can clone sheep, or produce babies in a test tube, or split atoms, or talk a blue streak about the id, ego and super ego! When has intellect produced the likes of any of the 'icons of faith' we daily venerate.

The daily struggle to attain to the greatest which God has for us, may indeed lead to the discovery of another great mind(s). The Fathers of the Church gave us decisions which still give us mental fits today. Before striving for intellect in the Church, let us "hold to the Apostles teaching, to the fellowship of bread (the Eucharist), and to prayer"! After all, look what that determination did for the Early Church.

I pray that something I've shared may be useful.

An unworthy servant,
Moses

[Owen Jones]

It's not an either/or question or issue, Moses. One doesn't have to become "ashamed" of our teachings and traditions in order to engage or confront the contemporary political/intellectual crisis that plagues mankind. The Church needs to be obedient in every sense of the word, and not simply end up being like the Amish (who are very fine people by the way, but that's not where we want to head). To be obedient in the fullest sense is to carry out the Great Commission, yet Orthodoxy, generally, is very self-involved, focused on very petty things. When our hierarchs have anything to say beyond our own cultish concerns, it is on the world's terms and in the world's language -- for example, the ideology of environmentalism. This cheapens the patristic view of creation and demoralizes the faithful because it makes it seem that modern ideology is more "progressive" than the Church. While God has promised us that He will not destroy the earth, and that He will guard the Church, that is not an excuse for complacency, and one example of complacency is for Orthodox faithul to very smugly quote the fathers to each other while the world burns.

The Church has a mission to the world that is at once ascetic and intellectual. The two hang together. But today the ascetic life is observed or recognized in theory but not much in practice, and as for philosophy and theology, it's mostly limited to monographs. If we have some great thinkers, we are hiding them under a bushel basket.

[erich von abele]

I believe one of the beliefs for which Origen was anathematized was his belief that even Satan could (not will) at some point repent, and be saved.

If he was anathematized for this, it shows to me the theologians of the Church were (and are) unable to demonstrate a mythopoetic flexibility with their own symbolisms in the interest of the truth they point to.

[Justin]

I don't know that that is correct; I think a number of Fathers entertained the possibility of such a thing (regarding Satan). The difference between the Origen's of the world and the Gregory of Nyssa's were that Origen's went way over the line with their speculation. I recall one monk being asked about whether it was possible for Satan to be saved, and responded by saying that Satan is too arrogant to realise that he even needs salvation. I don't recall hearing that he was accursed. Speculation isn't forbidden, (which you seem to be calling mythopoetic [sic?] flexibility?) what is forbidden is publically teaching others heresy (especially when you should know better -- after all, Origen was a genuise, so we can't just say he was a madman and didn't have a clue what he was actually saying). The Gregory Palamas' and the Symeon the New Theologians prove beyond doubt (a joke ;) in my mind that the Orthodox are not "inflexible" in language or thought. They just refuse to go outside the bounds of Orthodox thought, and those who do go outside those bounds are in danger of being condemned. There is, so to speak, a circle within which theologians can speculate as much as they wish. Outside of that circle lies extreme danger, though. If you go outside the circle (and affirm, let's say, a form of reincarnation like Origen did) then you could very possibly find yourself condemned. My 2 cents..

[Owen Jones]

Dear Justin,

In Origen's day, he WAS Orthodox thought.

[Justin]

Well Owen, if I have to pick between your "gut feeling" regarding Origen, (cf your June 4th post) and the Church's official stance, I think I'll take the Church's word for it. I reread my June 5th response to you and still find it applicable (regarding your October 13th post), so here it is again, friend:

"...The thing that scares me, friend, is that you are not trying to conform your opinion to what the Church teaches, but are instead trying to transform what the Church teaches according to your own opinion (regarding your position on Origen). Please forgive me. "

You could say "But in Origen's day there was no fixed doctrine or line to cross...". Unfortunately, according to Patristic [epistemological] thought, if he was indeed an Orthodox Christian (partaking of the divine nature and so forth), he should have been able to avoid the heresies.

[sinjin smithe]

I am first to admit I know very little about theologians and writings in our church. However, I agree with much of what James has said. Vlad, do you know if any of Fr. Arsenios Boca's writings are available in English? And what was the name of the book written by Fr. Seraphim Rose which critiqued evolution? The reason why I ask is that I am currently studying Biology at the university right now and I am very interested in any Orthodox perspective's on biology subjects.

[sinjin smithe]

So what is the consensus on Origen, heretic or a man who got a bad rap from the church?

[erich von abele]

If the Catholic Pope can give a posthumous reprieve to Galileo, why couldn't the Patriarchs get together and do the same for Origen?

[Justin]

sinjin: Here's a heretic. A brilliant man who I admittedly have found to be very helpful. But a heretic none-the-less.

erich: I don't recall the theological peculiarities of Galileo (I seem to remember--contrary to popular belief--that his problems arose from his arrogance and theology, not his science), and I couldn't speak for the west anyway. Origen, on the other hand, or more rightly, origenism, caused not-a-few deaths, and the persecution of thousands upon thousands. It was quite a large theological (group of) issue(s), especially among monks (at least, that's what I get from reading books like Chitty's "The Desert, A City"). The mind of the Church declared that Origen, at least at times, believed "absurd nonsense" and heresy. Where's the mind? The Head. Who's the Church's head? Christ.

[Moses Anthony]

Eric,

I was going to 'lay low' for a while, but part of your post early Sunday morning touched a chord in me.

You accuse Church theologians of putting forth an inflexible poetic myth! SURELY YOU JEST! There's nothing close to being a myth about the truth of the Chruch, which is, the truth about Jesus (for some reason I hear, "o.k., prove it". The proof would be the changed lives of people we today call SAINTS!)

There's something I came to understand as a Protestant, when in debate with unbelievers about Christianity: There's no need to be flexible when you know the truth. I may be more diplomatic, or try another avenue to clarify my arguement; however, I will not, for the sake of appearing to be ecumenical/nice compromise the truth.

Mother Teresa was dogmatic in her approach to caring for the poor in India, RC's have been dogmatic in pursuit of recognition of the Pope as the sole head of the Church on earth. What I saw in between the lines of the aforementioned post of yours, is a basic unbelief in what the theologians of the Church have been saying all along. How else could you say that they're putting forth an inflexible poetic myth.

On the face of it, this is where I rend my garments; if however I am wrong, I ask yours and the boards forgiveness!

the unworthy servant
Moses

[erich von abele]

James


"You accuse Church theologians of putting forth an inflexible poetic myth! SURELY YOU JEST! There's nothing close to being a myth about the truth of the Chruch, which is, the truth about Jesus"

I think you misunderstand. When I was, in that one instance about the impossibility of Satan's repentance, accusing the Church of inflexible mythopoetry, I meant to imply that in that instance it failed in not applying a flexible mythopoetry. I.e., I believe mythopoetry is a good thing, and a sometimes necessary linguistic way to express non-rational or extra-rational truths.

[Moses Anthony]

Eric,

Thank you for the clarification! I stand (or sit) corrected.

tus

[Richard McBride]

Origen & his ism // Eric

Beloved of God, Moses:

As I was reading your comments re Eric, I first thought of Paul’s admonition to the trouble-makers: Give them a couple of chances to shape up, but if they refuse the help of the several brethren, then avoid them, or kick ‘em out. But while Eric may be a provocateur among the lambs, he is in no position to profit from this sort of brotherly attention.

Then I thought of Paul’s advice to Titus: To remind the quarrelsome to be submissive and obedient; and importantly, to be prepared for hard honest work; but most importantly, “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy to all men.” [3:1]

But while I think these are most essential thoughts for the Christian to keep in mind, nevertheless, they don’t seem to apply to Eric’s situation either; and the only thing in this sort of thinking which might help you (for you already show all these good qualities), is to remind you not to bother rending your garments.

Then it occurred to me that if you shift the focus away from dietary issues but toward the situation of a provocateur, you might profit from Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 14, where he could have meant something like this: It is right not to do anything which might make your brother stumble. “The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God; happy is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned... for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”
[Forgive me for hacking up Paul’s words so badly.]

And that, of course, again raises the problem of “doubt”, which someone questioned, rightly, at an earlier point. For me, “doubt” is a fairly simple issue. I treat it as that which caused Peter to sink when he attempted to go over the waves to Christ. But I prefer to reference it as, “double mindedness”.

richard, who too often is found sinking

[Richard McBride]

Origen: Evolution

Beloved of the Lord, Sinjin:

Sorry that I don’t have any answers for you, but I do have a request: As you proceed more deeply into the issues which surround the “theory of evolution”, I would appreciate hearing from you. Already, you know more on the subject than do I, but I should enjoy learning how the bio-academics defend a position which seems to have produced so little hard evidence in its own support.

And keep this list of Saints to whom you may pray for aid in your studies:
The three great Hierarchs:
Saint Basil the Great,
Saint John Chrysostom,
Saint Gregory the Theologian;
and
Saint Servius of Radonezh,
Saint John Kronstadt,
Saint Nestor the Chronicler of the Kief Caves,
Saint Justin the Philosopher.

I pray to Saint Gregory the Theologian for you,
that you be granted wisdom and discernment in your studies,
and that he urge you continually to pray for guidance toward the Will of God
and thus to dampen the imaginations of your own ego.

richard mcb

[sinjin smithe]

Richard:
Thank you so much for the wonderful words. I will be petitioning those saints for aid in my study. If there is anything that I need right now it is wisdom and discernment towards the will of God in all aspects of my life, including my studies.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

While this Origen and Origenism thread has been quiet for some time, I nevertheless thought that there might be sufficient interest remaining among readers to warrant notification of a new book out on the subject. Mark Edwards, fellow in patristics at the University of Oxford, has just published his new monograph on Origen and Plato/Platonism, and it is a very insightful read. The text is not excessively lengthy (it comprises a very moderately sized paperback), and offers a very balanced look into the thought of Origen, specifically vis-a-vis the Platonic influences he is supposed to have had in such great quantity. Based on discussions had some time ago in this thread, I think the content of the book would be of interest to many people in this community.

The details are as follows:

Mark Julian Edwards, Origen against Plato (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002).

ISBN:
0754613313 (hardback)
075460828X (paperback)

(The paperback is available for $29.95 USD from Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/075460828X/qid=1037188731/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-0334344-0925766?v=glance&s=books) and for £15.99 Sterling from Amazon.co.uk (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/075460828X/qid%3D1037189154/026-0534796-5754855))

INXC, Matthew

[gary jones]

Just a thought:

It is my understanding that Origen was one of a kind when it came to theology and he really didnt have many before him in which to balance his thought against. Is it possible that Origen and his apokastasis (?) was more a theologoumenon rather than a doctrine he was expounding??? after all didnt St. Gregory of Nyssa wonder about this as well? Again, this is just my wondering at my very poor understanding of those things well beyond my comprehension.

[Theopesta]

can I find homilies of origen on lviticus on the net, thanks

[leandros]

Friend gary jones,

St Gregory of Nyssa was not using the "apokatastasis" (restoration) issue for the will of human beings, but only for the nature of human being - the will of humans remains non-restored by st. Gregory's theology.

At the other hand, Origen was using a scheme of repetitive incarnations of pre-existed human souls into human bodies, as a cource of driving to perfection, until the destorted nature of the once perfect created soul-human reinstates to its first state. In this context, human will is not a manifestation of freedom but the result of the status of his nature.

Ultimately, St. Gregory of Nyssa is in contraposition to Origen, but seems that he aggrees with him if you are not in a position to distinguish the semantics of their theology.

[Olga]

Could anyone comment on Origen's views on icons? From my limited reading, some say he was in favour, some suggest he was against them indirectly, because of his heretical (Arian-like) position on the nature of Christ, which, in effect, denied His true and full incarnation.

[Owen Jones]

This is the first time I have heard Origen being accused of Arianism. It would be a bit difficult in that he died before Arius was born! If anything, Origen is the extreme opposite of Arianism.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Owen,

Actually, the idea that Origen's consideration leads in the direction of some of the issues at stake for Arius is rather common. Obviously one must avoid the blatant anachronism of the fact that Origen lives and writes before Arius (Olga for her part did say 'Arian-like'), so obviously is not 'Arian' or influenced by Arianism. However, Origen's speculations on the Son's stature in relation to the Father is seen by some as grounded in the same kind of approach that led Arius to his own conclusions and objections. Particularly, Origen's comment that from the perspective of humanity the Son is divine and God and thus 'higher' than all, but from the perspective of the Father he is lower as divine by receipt of and participation in the Father's divine nature, is seen by some as having parallels in approach to the line of thought that would lead Arius to speculate that the Son was in fact a creature fashioned by God (a specific notion that Origen clearly rejects, precisely by his notion of 'eternal generation').

As to Olga's question on icons in particular: I'm afraid I've no knowledge of a specific view on icons Origen might have held. To which sources were you referring in your comments? They might prove a good starting point for some further study.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

As an aside: I find it amusing that the Monachos spell-checker highlighted all the names of heretics, quasi-heretics, and heretical lines of thought when I was composing my last message. Every instance of 'Arius', 'Arianism' and 'Origen' (not to re-open debate on that last item!) the spell-checker did not recognise and highlighted in red font with a yellow background.

Perhaps its notice should be re-written to read 'possible doctrinal errors in your message have been highlighted in this preview'... http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

But my understanding is that virtually all Christology prior to Nicea is subordinationist, in one form or other??????

[Owen Jones]

You should market the software to Protestants, with some tweeking of course, so that it could distinguish between pre-millennial dispensationalsm and double predestinationsim. There wouldn't be enough Orthodox demand for you to get rich off it, by I can see licensing it to Thomas Nelson, or maybe Liberty University.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Owen wrote:


But my understanding is that virtually all Christology prior to Nicea is subordinationist, in one form or other?

This is true (depending on how one defines 'subordinationist', though I am sure you are well aware of this). The specific correlation drawn between Origen and Arius in this regard comes not in the simple fact of subordination (i.e. proclaiming that the Father is 'greater' than the Son, or 'first' in a ordering or taxis), but in the manner by which Origen articulated this subordination. More precisely, in the notion of shared/received/emanated essence or divine nature, which is the Father's but which becomes the Son's and the Spirit's through participation. It is difficult to discern Origen's precise implications in his discussion here (this articulation is found in his highly speculative De principiis), but it is often interpreted (both by ancients and moderns) as implying that the Son's divinity is not inherently his own -- as Son he is only divine because he participates in the Father's divinity. The goes beyond a 'simple' subordination (e.g. simply saying 'God, Son and Spirit') or a subordination of taxis (e.g. 'we honour the Father first, with his Son and Spirit'), in effect making the subordination ontological. The extrapolated 'logical conclusion' becomes 'the Father is ontologically greater than the Son, who is ontologically greater than the Spirit', precisely because the Father is the full reality of the divine nature (ousia), whilst the others are so by participation in what the Father is.

This is seen by some as a more coherent correlate to the kind of logic that drove Arius to proclaim that the Son's subordination to the Father extended as far as different categories of existence -- eternal vs. creature.

INXC, Matthew

[Owen Jones]

Very helpful. Thanks.


xxx xxx

[Kosta]

Origen while having brilliant concepts at the end went to far with them. His importance to me is more of his writings on the church and christianity of his day. He also makes a distinction between "that which was handed down from the Apostles" and his own opinions which is profitable for the study of the early church.

Unfortunately he reached many false conclusions, Though today he would be considered a great and brilliant Theologian and im saying that with a bit of sarcasm towards todays orthodox "theologians"

[John Uebersax]

The current Wikipedia entry on reincarnation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

says:

"...Gregory of Nyssa cites Origen: By some inclination toward
evil, certain souls ... come into bodies, first of men; then
through their association with the irrational passions, after
the allotted span of human life, they are changed into beasts,
from which they sink to the level of plants. From this condition
they rise again through the same stages and are restored to
their heavenly place. (B.W. Butterworth [sic], On First
Principles, Book I, Chapter VIII (New York: Harper & Row, 1966),
p. 73)."

I believe this quotation and citation are incorrect.

1. Can anyone verify that this quote does or does not appear
on p. 73, or elsewhere in Book I, Ch. 8, of G.W. Butterworth's
translation?

2. Would Gregory of Nyssa have been likely to cite Origen on
this topic, and if so, where?

The passage is vaguely similar to sections of Jerome's "quotation"
of Origen in his Epistle to Avitus, listed in Book I of the
Roberts/Donaldson translation of De Principiis:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-45.htm#P6244_1101010

I am very intent on tracking this issue down and would greatly
appreciate any assistance anyone might provide.
--
John Uebersax

[John Charmley]

Reading Bishops Kallistos' The Inner Kingdom and his chapter, 'Dare we hope for the salvation of all?' I was drawn back to this thread, and although much enlightened, couldn't see where the Church was on the question of Apocatastasis?

Bishop Kallistos was, as always, erudite and interesting, and his patristic and biblical quotations apposite. His quotation from St. Silouan the Athonite is a beautiful one: 'Love could not bear that ... We must pray for all.'

Since I am already, in the eyes of some of our readers, at least one sort of heretic, and am probably on my way to being another sort, I hesitate to express a view at all, but how do folk here view the Bishop's opinions on this?

Being an exiting Anglican, I can see the attraction of the view that since only God knows who can be saved, and since we cannot know His mind, it is presumptuous of us to pronounce. Yet it seems as though the 5th Council did just that. The Bishop's arguments to the contrary seem the least convincing part of the piece I have read.

What, I wonder, do others hold the position of the Church to be on this? Or should that be rephrased as: what is the position of the Church on Apocatastasis?

Always risky to raise anything to do with Origen, but here goes ...

In Christ,

John

[Ryan]

The priest of the church I'm going to has had me reading Ware's The Orthodox Way. I find that Ware often engages in too much speculation, especially for introductory books. I'm not sure if it's in the same words, but he asks the same question you just cited. He also speculates about some special relationship between God and Satan that we don't know about, and describes Christ as having "inward conflict". While I appreciate what Ware has done, I think his grace may be trying too hard to be remembered as one of those "brilliant theologians" bursting with "imaginative creativity."

The church clearly rejects the idea of apocatastasis. According to Bishop Kallistos, however, Gregory of Nyssa stated that it was permissable to hope for universal reconciliation, as opposed to thinking it must happen. This is a theological opinion though.

Origen, while he was condemned, seems to have been very influential, along with Evagrius, among some recognized Church Fathers like Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor. He had many wrong ideas but I think he was probably sincere and pious.

[M.C. Steenberg]

The church clearly rejects the idea of apocatastasis.

Does it?

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Does it?

INXC, Matthew

Besides the pastoral perils in this issue which are not to be overlooked the question comes down to that of necessity and free will.

To put the almost unanawerable and politically incorrect question which I certainly don't know the answer to- is it correct to say that God wills that all be saved? Jump to the automatic impulse to say 'yes' and we can see the problem right away.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

Though the Coptic Orthodox certainly do not formally or even very informally accept the apocatastasis nevertheless each of our daily hours ends with a prayer which contains the lines..

Christ our God, the good, the long suffering, the abundant in mercy, and the great in compassion. Who loves the righteous and has mercy on sinners of whom I am the chief. Who does not desire the death of the sinner but rather that he repents and lives, who calls all men to salvation and the promise of the blessing to come.

It seems to me that this expresses the heart-felt desire of God that all men and all creation be united to Himself in love and light, and that even if I dare not speak with anything other than hesitancy about the final end of those who seem to have rejected Him, nevertheless I can say with confidence and certainty that he is abundant in mercy and great in compassion and does not desire the death of any sinner. Thank God for I am a great sinner.

Peter

[William Swabey]

If the Catholic Pope can give a posthumous reprieve to Galileo, why couldn't the Patriarchs get together and do the same for Origen?
Probably because the patriarchs don't coordinate themselves
like that, which is a current sadness in orthodoxy. The Pope can be
autocratic and they can be seperate in their authority. I've never
understood that difference! However, Origen doesn't need to be 'forgiven'
as much as taught. That, I think, would be his best justification.
I can't think of anyone having a theological crisis over his thoughts, but have seen many fired by his way of thinking, which is both spiritual and theological,
beautifully blended.

Best wishes

William Swabey

[M.C. Steenberg]

Besides the pastoral perils in this issue which are not to be overlooked the question comes down to that of necessity and free will. To put the almost unanawerable and politically incorrect question which I certainly don't know the answer to- is it correct to say that God wills that all be saved? Jump to the automatic impulse to say 'yes' and we can see the problem right away.

Ah, agreed. But that was not the question. The statement was:


The church clearly rejects the idea of apocatastasis.

To which I asked:


Does it?

I happen to agree with your comments on pastoral problems with proclaiming a stalwart doctrine of universal salvation as an absolute; but the question of the church rejecting the very idea of apokatastasis -- this is something rather different. And so far as I am aware, it does not.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

I happen to agree with your comments on pastoral problems with proclaiming a stalwart doctrine of universal salvation as an absolute; but the question of the church rejecting the very idea of apokatastasis -- this is something rather different. And so far as I am aware, it does not.

Dear Matthew,
That is interesting, because I could find no clear sign that the Church rejected the idea of apocatastasis; equally, there was no sign it accepted it either.

I am drawn to the Coptic prayer Peter mentions:

Christ our God, the good, the long suffering, the abundant in mercy, and the great in compassion. Who loves the righteous and has mercy on sinners of whom I am the chief. Who does not desire the death of the sinner but rather that he repents and lives, who calls all men to salvation and the promise of the blessing to come.


which seems to me to get as close as is necessary. Too much hankering after cut and dried definitions of what cannot be known is a common enough scholastic trait, but not always helpful, especially in this area.

My reading of the 5th Council is that it condemned the way certain of Origen's ideas had come to be represented, without drawing the distinction which some modern scholars would want, between his dogmatic and his speculative teachings. I am not sure whether that idea commands any assent here, but I, for one, am happy to admit that some things are ineffable.

On the pastoral front, perhaps the concept of theosis is most helpful here. If we are to grow more like the image of God in whom we are made, then we have the teachings of Our Lord and His Church as guides, and its Sacraments as agents of transformation; so even if the Lord Our God is Love and wishes for us all to be saved, that does not dispense us from trying to live the Christian life. We know what God wants, and we so often fail to deliver, but He waits for our repentance, and He desires the death of none of us. But this does not preclude that, by our self-will and stubbornness, we may decline His will, even here in terms of salvation. But His love and power are Ineffable, and we cannot know, or hope to know, how He will judge us, or how we will respond.

That reassures me, for one, because I know that if I were to be judged by my deserts in human terms, I would surely perish; I am grateful that I will be judged by the only just Judge, and that He will decide according to His will and His grace. But I don't feel that lets me off trying to be a better person. As the British politician and Greek scholar, Enoch Powell once commented, when asked by a street evangelist why he was not dancing and singing if he had 'been saved': 'I don't like to boast about it - it was a very close shave.'

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Ah, agreed. But that was not the question. The statement was:



To which I asked:



I happen to agree with your comments on pastoral problems with proclaiming a stalwart doctrine of universal salvation as an absolute; but the question of the church rejecting the very idea of apokatastasis -- this is something rather different. And so far as I am aware, it does not.

INXC, Matthew

Sorry. I was off on a different tangent. Which I see arose from hitting the Quote rather than the Reply button.

Off on a tangent. Once again.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael wrote:


Sorry. I was off on a different tangent. Which I see arose from hitting the Quote rather than the Reply button.

Not a worry... in fact, it raised a good point! As before, I don't disagree with your comments. There are real pastoral concerns that arise out of ideas of 'universal salvation' as an absolute, just as there are real theological concerns (concerning, as others have noted, questions over freedom). As Mr Charmley noted:


I could find no clear sign that the Church rejected the idea of apocatastasis; equally, there was no sign it accepted it either.

This is the point to remember, I think, lest we take too strict a line on the historical aspect.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fr Raphael wrote:



Not a worry... in fact, it raised a good point! As before, I don't disagree with your comments. There are real pastoral concerns that arise out of ideas of 'universal salvation' as an absolute, just as there are real theological concerns (concerning, as others have noted, questions over freedom). As Mr Charmley noted:



This is the point to remember, I think, lest we take too strict a line on the historical aspect.

INXC, Matthew

I have to admit that between the pastoral point, indications that there is a kind of apocatastasis, and very dire warnings from a number of Holy Frs that there is not an inevitable resolution of all things (again it's a pastoral warning it seems) I at least find it very difficult to tie all the loose ends together in my own mind.

I wonder about Origen's apocatastasis though: is the main problem that it is inevitable regardless of our free will?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Probably because the patriarchs don't coordinate themselves
like that, which is a current sadness in orthodoxy. The Pope can be
autocratic and they can be seperate in their authority. I've never
understood that difference! However, Origen doesn't need to be 'forgiven'
as much as taught. That, I think, would be his best justification.
I can't think of anyone having a theological crisis over his thoughts, but have seen many fired by his way of thinking, which is both spiritual and theological,
beautifully blended.

Best wishes

William Swabey



For us doctrinal statements of our Councils which speak in accord with the mind of the Church are seen as being inspired by the Holy Spirit. They need interpretation & must be applied with discretion in a pastoral context. But there is a continuity to these statements which speaks of their inspired content.

The condemnation of Origen would not be overturned simply because it faithfully relfects fundamental aspects of Church doctrine for us.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

From the book "Gifts of the Desert" by Kyriacos C. Markides (pg 248)

St. Silouan wrote: "My soul knows the mercy of God towards sinful humanity. Standing faced to face with Gode I am writing the truth: that every one of us sinful human beings will be saved. Not even a single soul will be lost, if it undergoes metanoia. It is so because the Lord is so infintely Good in His very nature that it is impossible to described with whatever words". (emphasis mine)

The point being that life after death 'must imply an eternal evolutionary process of purification', that all souls will sooner or later mature spiritually and undergo genuine metanoia which will open the gates for them to experience the eternal love of the Creator.

He then goes on to write about a story of Huston Smith, who, in 1964, while at the foothills of the Himalayas in India, he met a missionary of the Eastern Orthodox Church named Father Lazarus who had made an incredible impression on him. Mr. Smith went on to tell Father Lazarus that he was attracted to Hinduism because of its doctrine of universal salvation.

"Brother Lazarus responded by telling me his views on that matter. They took off from the passage in Second Corinthians where St. Paul tells of knowing someone who twelve years earlier had been caught up into the third heaven, whether in the body or out of the body he did not know... in that heaven the man 'heard things that were not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat.'... Paul was speaking of himself, Father Lazarus was convinced, and the secret he was told in the third heaven was that ultimately everyone in saved. That is the fact of the matter, Father Lazarus believed, but it must not be told because the uncomprehending would take it as a license for irresponsibility. If they are going to be saved eventually, why bother? That exegesis solved my problem and has stayed in place ever since."

I do hesitate in quoting this, being that the idea of apokatastasis ton panton can be spiritually damaging and Lord have mercy on me if it strays people form the correct path by reading this. Many Church Fathers have spoken against this idea and I am only a simple laymen. I can't imagine it being a sin, however, to pray for such an outcome and hope that in the end all of us sinners will reach theosis. I know ultimately, such things are left for the mystery of God, though I hope one of our members could correct me if I am wrong in thinking this way.

[John Charmley]

I do hesitate in quoting this, being that the idea of apokatastasis ton panton can be spiritually damaging and Lord have mercy on me if it strays people form the correct path by reading this. Many Church Fathers have spoken against this idea and I am only a simple laymen. I can't imagine it being a sin, however, to pray for such an outcome and hope that in the end all of us sinners will reach theosis. I know ultimately, such things are left for the mystery of God, though I hope one of our members could correct me if I am wrong in thinking this way.

Antonios,
I am grateful for the quotation, and although I appreciate your delicacy and caveats in offering it, I think you were correct to offer it for discussion here.

The kind of human mind that will take the existence of possible apocatastasis as a carte blanche for wrong-doing will find another excuse for it if apocatastasis did not exist as an idea.

I do not read the idea as exempting anyone from trying to live the Christian life to the full. Salvation is not, as the Church teaches, reached through 'works', but through works, faith in Christ, and the grace of God. For me, apocatastasis provides the hope that when my works fail and my faith is not good enough despite all my prayers, I can still look to the Grace of God; but I don't see it as letting me off trying in this earthly life.

Origen, as was his wont, raises difficult questions in a paradoxical way, but this is the way I have found of reconciling free will and the possibility of universal salvation.

After all, since none of us can be presumptuous enough to claim to know the mind of God, we can't rule apocatastasis out - which is why, I had thought, the Church had neither ruled it in nor ruled it out. Here, as in so many other areas, the wisdom of the Fathers strikes me.

In Christ,

John

[Scott Pierson]

it was permissable to hope for universal reconciliation, as opposed to thinking it must happen

Thats all Bishop Ware was saying if I understand him correctly. That we have free will and could reject God for all eternity but their is nothing wrong with praying and having hope that this wont happen. To go to far in either direction and say "yes their will definitly be people in hell suffering for all eternity" or " all people will of necessity be saved from hell" are both beyond what we now know. All we can say is that hell is a very real possiblity. Is that true ? I'm not sure. I find myself always wanting to believe in universal salvation but I'm afraid thats not necesarily for the proper reasons but because of fear for others ( especially my friends (many of whom have been atheists, drug addicts, and "not nice people ") I'ts always worrying to think of them burning in hell ). I think Bishop Kallistos Wares views are closer to the truth then the more extreme views on either side which either reject free will or claim that they know for certain that a certain number (usually very high) of people will burn in hell for eternity.

[Scott Pierson]

After all, since none of us can be presumptuous enough to claim to know the mind of God, we can't rule apocatastasis out - which is why, I had thought, the Church had neither ruled it in nor ruled it out. Here, as in so many other areas, the wisdom of the Fathers strikes me.

I know the Church has ruled out the form of apocastasis promoted by origen (which takes as a presuposition the prexistence of souls and certain philosophical theories as to the nature of movement and rest and all that.) but I dont think it has ever ruled out the possiblity of another form of apocastasis that doesnt imply those presupositions ? St Gregory of Nyssa apparently didnt think it did. I guess maybe its just to speculative and thats why the Church has never codified the theory into any council or such and actually has spoken against certain forms of it. Maybe its something God doesnt want us to know at this time (if their will be an apocastasis that is ) because he wants us to have absolute trust in Him that he will do what is right and most merciful despite our lack of assurance as to what might happen. you know ? like "just be still and know that I am God and trust in my mercy" type thing.

[Ryan]

I have read over and over again, in many places, that "there is no repentance after death." Is this not a dogmatic truth?

[Scott Pierson]

I have read over and over again, in many places, that "there is no repentance after death." Is this not a dogmatic truth?

There are instances in the lives of the saints in which a certain person is suffering hell and then due to the prayers of the saints is allowed to escape hell. I would assume some form of repentance took place because if it didnt that would mean that God was saving someone against their own free will and if they already had repented before they died they would not have ended up in hell in the first place . So , maybe they are saying that repentance is impossible after the final judgement and the resurection of the body (as opposed to after death but before the final judgement in which repentance is possible). I may be mislead as to what those instances really imply though so dont take my word on it.

[John Charmley]

It is unclear to me on what basis any human being can pronounce with confidence whether there is or is not repentance after death.

It is equally unclear that the Fathers and the Scriptures pronounce on this in an unambiguous manner either. Origen's pre-existence of souls was condemned as heretical teaching, but for apocatastasis to be a possibility, then it would seem that repentance after repose must also be a possibility.

Origen seems to be saying that everyone can be saved, but not that everyone must or will be saved. It has to be possible for a soul to continue to deny the salvation that is offered; just as it remains possible that God's love can help redeem even the greatest sinner.

None of this dispenses us from trying to live the Christian life, but for those brought up in the western, Augustinian tradition, it might do something to make the burden of sin less intolerable.


In Christ


John

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Father Raphael,


I wonder about Origen's apocatastasis though: is the main problem that it is inevitable regardless of our free will?

Are free wills always free? It seems not so when they are bound whether it is here, there or everywhere.

As you well know there are many prayers that address the distorted will of man, such as; But whether I will it or not, save me, O Christ my Savior.


The Blessed Theophylact mentions the below in his commentary about the rich man and Lazarus,

"Mark here a conclusion to be drawn against the Origenists who say that there will be a time when there is an end to hell, that the sinners will be united with the righteous and with God, and that thus God will become all in all. Let us hear what Abraham says, that they who would pass from hence to you, or from thence to us, cannot."



Here is the full context.


19-22. And there was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day. And there was a certain poor man named Lazarus, who was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the poor man died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried. These words follow closely upon what was said before. Because the Lord first taught, above, how we are to be good stewards of wealth, now He appropriately adds this parable which teaches the same thing through the example of the rich man. This is a parable and not, as some have foolishly imagined, something which actually occurred. For good things have not yet been allotted to the righteous, nor punishments to the sinners. The Lord, then, fashioned this story to teach those who show no mercy and give no alms what punishments await them, and to teach those who are suffering what good things they will enjoy on account of the sufferings they patiently endure in this life. The Lord gave no name to the rich man in this parable, because such a man is not worthy to be remembered by God by name. As the Lord says, through the prophet, nor will I make remembrance of their names through My lips. [12] But the Lord mentions the poor man by name, for the names of the righteous are inscribed in the Book of Life. There is a story, according to the tradition of the Hebrews, of a certain Lazarus who lived at that time in Jerusalem, whose lot was one of extreme poverty and sickness. Because he was so well known in the city, the Lord uses his name in the parable. The rich man was awash in wealth, so much so that he clothed himself in purple and costly linen. Not only this, but he also luxuriated in every other kind of luxury. For it says that he fared sumptuously, not now and then, but everyday, and not in moderation, but sumptuously, meaning, extravagantly and at great cost. But Lazarus was destitute and grievously diseased, for it says that he was full of sores. It is one thing to be ill; it is another thing to be covered with open sores. But the evil which he suffered goes even further: lying at the gate of the rich man, he had the added torment of seeing others feasting to excess while he himself starved. He desired to be fed, not with their costly foods, but with the crumbs of these foods, the same crumbs which the dogs ate. He was also destitute of any help, for the dogs licked his sores, and he had no one to drive them away. Lazarus suffered such terrible things. Did he then blaspheme? Did he revile the luxury of the rich man? Did he condemn his callousness? Did he accuse the Divine Providence? He did none of these things, even in thought; rather, he bravely and wisely endured all. How do we know this? From the fact that the angels took him when he died. For if he had been a grumbler and a blasphemer, he would not have been deemed worthy of such an honor, to be escorted by the angels. The rich man also died, and was buried. In truth, while he still lived his soul had been buried alive, entombed within his flesh. Therefore, when he died, his soul was not led away by the angels but instead was borne downwards into hades. He who has never had a single lofty or heavenly thought deserves the lowest place. Thus by saying that he was buried, the Lord implies that the rich man's soul received its portion in the lowest and darkest place.

23-26. And in hades he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. When the Lord cast Adam out of paradise He settled him in a place just opposite, so that the continuous sight of paradise before his eyes would keep fresh in his mind the calamity that had befallen him and would arouse in him a sharper sense of his fall from good things. In like manner the Lord condemned the rich man to a place just opposite Lazarus, so that the sight of him in such a blessed state might awaken in the rich man the realization of the good things he lost because of his cruelty. Why was it that he saw Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham, and not of any other of the righteous? Because Abraham showed hospitality to strangers. The rich man sees Lazarus with Abraham as a reproof of his own inhospitality. For Abraham used to draw into his own house even those who were just passing by, while the rich man overlooked a man who was lying within his very courtyard. And why does the rich man address his words to Abraham, and not to Lazarus? Perhaps he was ashamed. It may be that he judged Lazarus to be no different than himself and therefore assumed that Lazarus would bear a grudge for past wrongs. "If I, while enjoying such great prosperity, overlooked him while he was suffering such great afflictions, and did not even give him the crumbs from my table, how much more will he who was thus despised now remember those past wrongs and refuse to grant me any favor?" This is why he addresses his words to Abraham' thinking that the patriarch would be unaware of what had happened. How then does Abraham respond? Does he say, "O cruel and heartless man! Are you not ashamed? Only now do you remember compassion?" Not this, but rather, Son. Behold a compassionate and holy soul! For a certain wise man has said, "Trouble not a soul that has been brought low." This is why Abraham says, Son. By this he also intimates that it is within his power only to speak to him gently, but more than this he is not permitted to do. "That which I have to give, I give you—a voice of compassion. But to go from here to there I cannot, for all things have been shut. And you have received your good things, and in like manner Lazarus evil things." Why does he use the [Greek] word apelabes, thou receivedst, and not the [simpler Greek] word elabes? We say [in Greek] that a recipient receives [apolambanei] those things which are his due. What then do we learn? That even if a man is utterly defiled and has reached the last degree of wickedness, perhaps he has done at least one or two good things. So that even such a man may have some good things, as when he obtains prosperity in this life as his reward, and thus it may be said that he has received these things as his due. Likewise Lazarus received evil things as his due. For perhaps he also did one or two evil things, and he received as his merited reward for these evil things the suffering which he endured in this life. Therefore now he is comforted, while you are in torment. The chasm indicates the separation and the difference that exists between the righteous and the sinners. Just as their choices were far different in this life, so too their dwelling places in the next life are separated by a great distance, each one receiving as his due the reward appropriate to his choices in this life. Mark here a conclusion to be drawn against the Origenists who say that there will be a time when there is an end to hell, that the sinners will be united with the righteous and with God, and that thus God will become all in all. Let us hear what Abraham says, that they who would pass from hence to you, or from thence to us, cannot. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to go from the place apportioned to the righteous to the place of the sinners, and likewise, Abraham teaches us, it is impossible to go from the place of punishment to the place of the righteous. And Abraham, I presume, is more trustworthy than Orleans. [13] What is hades? Some say that it is a place of darkness beneath the earth; others have said that hades is the departure of the soul from that which is seen to that which is unseen and invisible. While the soul is in the body, it is manifest through its own energies [which animate the body], but when the soul has departed from the body it becomes invisible. [14] This is hades, they say. The bosom of Abraham is the enclosure within which are stored up the good things that await the righteous, who after the storm have found the heavenly haven. We use the same word to name those bodies of water on the sea which are shaped like harbors and havens. [15] Mark this as well, that on that day of judgment, the man who did wrong will see the one he wronged in the glory that is his, and the man who was wronged will likewise see the one who wronged him in that condemnation which befalls him, just as here in this parable the rich man sees Lazarus, and Lazarus the rich man.

27-31. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: for I have rive brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. The miserable rich man, having failed in his request for himself, now makes supplication on behalf of others. See how punishment has led him to awareness. He who before had overlooked Lazarus as he lay at his feet now thinks of others who are absent, and begs that Lazarus be sent from the dead to his father's house. He asks that not just anyone of the dead, but Lazarus in particular, be sent, so that the rich man's brothers might see him crowned with health and glory. They who once saw him in sickness and in dishonor and were witnesses of his poverty, would be witnesses of his glory. From this it is clear that Lazarus would have appeared to them in glory, had it been necessary to send him as a believable messenger. How then does Abraham reply? They have Moses. "You do not take care of your brothers," he is saying, "as well as He Who created them, God Himself. For He has appointed ten thousand teachers for them." But the rich man answers, Nay, father. Since he himself had heard the Scriptures and did not believe, considering the readings to be myths, he suspected that it was the same for his brothers. Judging them by what he knew to be true of himself, he said that they gave no more heed to the Scriptures than he did, but that if one should rise from the dead then they would believe. There are those even now who say the same: "Who knows what is in hades? Who has ever come from there to tell us?" But let them hear Abraham who says that if we do not give heed to the Scriptures, we will not believe even those who come from hades. The Jews showed this to be true. Because they gave no heed to the Scriptures, they did not believe when they saw the dead resurrected, but even attempted to slay that other Lazarus who was four days dead. Many of the dead arose at the Lord's Crucifixion, yet this only intensified the Jews' murderous assault against the apostles. If raising the dead would truly help us to believe, the Lord would do this often. But there is no help so great as the close study of the Scriptures. For the devil by trickery has appeared to raise the dead and by this means has deceived the foolish; and concerning those in hades he spreads doctrines worthy of his own wickedness. But no such trickery can prevail against those who make wise study of the Scriptures. For the Scriptures are a lamp and a light, [16] and when light shines, the thief appears and is discovered. Therefore, let us believe the Scriptures and let us not seek out resurrections from the dead. The parable may also be understood in a more figurative sense. The rich man represents the Hebrew people. Of old this people was rich in all knowledge and wisdom, and in the words of God which are more precious than gold and many costly stones. And this people was clothed in purple and fine linen, having both kingship and priesthood, being a royal priesthood to God. [17] The purple signifies kingship and the fine linen priesthood, for the Levites used fine linen cloth for the priestly vestments. The Hebrews fared sumptuously everyday. Everyday they offered morning and evening sacrifices, which were called the constant offering. [18] Lazarus represents the people from among the Gentiles, destitute of divine grace and wisdom, lying before the gates. For the Gentiles were not permitted to enter the house of God; this was considered a defilement, as when, in the Book of Acts, an outcry was made against Paul for bringing Gentiles into the temple and defiling that holy place. [19] The Gentiles were covered with the sores of festering sin, on which impudent dogs, the demons, were feeding. For our sores are pleasure to the demons. And the Gentiles longed for the crumbs which fell from the table of the rich man. They had no share at all of that bread which strengtheneth man's heart, [20] and they were in need of those most subtle and refined particles of the rational food, like the Canaanite woman desired to be fed from the crumbs, even though she was a Gentile. [21] What then? The Hebrew people died to God, and their bones, which made no movement towards the good, became stiff in death. But Lazarus, the Gentile people, died to sin, and the Jews, who died in their sins, bum with the flame of spite. They are envious, as the Apostle says, that the Gentiles have been accepted unto faith, [22] and that the people of the nations, who before were destitute and dishonored, are now in the bosom of Abraham, the father of the nations, and rightly so. For Abraham, himself a Gentile, believed in God, and changed from idolatry to the knowledge of God. Therefore it is right that those who share in his change and in his faith should also find rest in his bosom, and inherit his same portion, dwelling place, and store of good things. The Jew desires just one drop of the old sprinklings and purifications of the law in order to cool his tongue, that he might have the boldness to say to us that the law is still in effect. But he does not obtain his desire. For the law was until John the Forerunner and from then sacrifice and offering hast Thou not desired, as the prophet foretold. [23] And Daniel foretold that the anointing [chrisma] shall be destroyed, [24] and prophecy shall be sealed, [25] meaning, that prophecy shall cease and be closed. But you, O reader, must also understand the moral meaning of this parable. Do not be rich in wickedness and overlook your mind which is starved and cast down, although it was created to be borne aloft. Do not let it wander outside, nor let it lie idly on the ground, but lead it within and let it act. Then there will be in you the working of the mind and the spirit, and not merely the feasting of the flesh. Likewise, there are other elements of this parable which may easily be understood for your moral benefit.

[William Swabey]

Our next exam at Patristics (I'm in a Faculty of Theology here in Romania) will be about Origenes (don't know if that's the correct English spelling), and I started reading the works I could find translated in Romanian. I knew some things about hium before starting reading, among which that he was anathematized at the 5th Ecumenical Council, for his heteorodox oppinions, such as "apocatastasis". Upon beginning to read, I am bedazzled (is that a word?) by the almost 100% oppinions which are, if that's right to say, pro-Origenes.

I would like to ask you people what do you think, and what do you suggest would be the best books about him, as viewed by the Orthodox Church (because I couldn't find any Orthodox study about him, the best I have is Henry Crouzel's (a Jesuite priest) - "Origene")

Sorry,
Vlad
Vlad,
Good books on Origen are notoriously difficult to find, even in English.

He's a difficult person to 'unravel' for anyone, but worth the effort.

I have thought in teaching him, as with some theologians or spiritual
writers, is worth it because of the attempt to do so !

I'm sure you know Henri Crouzel's classic text - 'ORIGEN', translated from French, T & T Clark, 1989. He obviously has the disadvantage of being Catholic, as am I, but its still the best way into Origen.

My experience of producing courses on Origen was the degree to which his mind fitted into no easy categories, (although some have tried - and I think the accusations of heresy are the same). People try and herd him into a corner, when they are dealing with a bird that flies beautifully, not a sheep.

In short, I think his way of writing is one of poetic imagination, with all the disturbing force that can have.

Good luck with your studies ! Can't wait to hear more.

Best wishes
William Swabey

[Owen Jones]

Origen should be read for his commentaries on Scripture. In there one finds every conceivable argument he can muster for the urgency of repentance and conversion. If one is looking for an anthology, see Spirit and Fire by Von Balthasar.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew P wrote:



Are free wills always free? It seems not so when they are bound whether it is here, there or everywhere.

As you well know there are many prayers that address the distorted will of man, such as; But whether I will it or not, save me, O Christ my Savior.

Thanks a lot for pointing this out. It really sets the overall context of the discussion.

I'm presently reading St Augustine where we can see some of the same challenges in reconciling God's will and ours. St Augustine says, "To those whom He has predestined to eternal death, He is also the most righteous awarder of punishment." St Augustine also speaks of those who are predestined to salvation in the same absolute sense.

This seems very similar to absolute apocatastasis except this time it takes account of two categories: saints & sinners into which all things will be resolved.

St Augustine knows there is free will among us. But he tends to think oppositionally about God's will & ours which puts him somewhat at odds with the Eastern Frs who think in terms of synergy.

Thus he also tends to speak of the conversion of the will as a movement from a bad to a good will almost like it is a change in its nature. Although it's probably not fair to say he doesn't know there is really one will for us working in various manners, his own oppositional way of thinking leads him to write at times as if we have two opposed wills. This seems to come from the logic of his own way of thinking about God's will which in turn gives difficulty in expressing how conversion is really a freeing of our will.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

It is unclear to me on what basis any human being can pronounce with confidence whether there is or is not repentance after death.

It is equally unclear that the Fathers and the Scriptures pronounce on this in an unambiguous manner either. Origen's pre-existence of souls was condemned as heretical teaching, but for apocatastasis to be a possibility, then it would seem that repentance after repose must also be a possibility.

Origen seems to be saying that everyone can be saved, but not that everyone must or will be saved. It has to be possible for a soul to continue to deny the salvation that is offered; just as it remains possible that God's love can help redeem even the greatest sinner.

None of this dispenses us from trying to live the Christian life, but for those brought up in the western, Augustinian tradition, it might do something to make the burden of sin less intolerable.


In Christ


John

John Charmley wrote:


It is equally unclear that the Fathers and the Scriptures pronounce on this in an unambiguous manner either. Origen's pre-existence of souls was condemned as heretical teaching, but for apocatastasis to be a possibility, then it would seem that repentance after repose must also be a possibility.

Origen seems to be saying that everyone can be saved, but not that everyone must or will be saved. It has to be possible for a soul to continue to deny the salvation that is offered; just as it remains possible that God's love can help redeem even the greatest sinner.

I am no expert about Origen but from what I know it does seem there is an ambiguity in his understanding of the final salvation. Sometimes he seems to allow for final & absolute condemnation while other times not. This seems to reflect the fact that he could speak as a representative of the wider traditions of the Church as they were known at his time (he can be read with interest on this level if this is done with care). But at times he also speaks as a speculative theologian which is where he more often fell onto dangerous ground.

It is this last & the teachings resulting from this which is most often synodically condemned when it comes to Origen. As with other condemnations by the Church this often arose well after the person condemned had actually lived. Many centuries after Origen some of his teachings had become very popular especially in some monastic circles. So the Church had to respond to this.

The greatest defect in Origen's theological thinking is the way he tends to identify God's essence & will. According to this way of thinking there is a natural compulsion in terms of God's interaction with His creation according to the simplicity of His essence. This then casts an inevitability on all that God wills & accomplishes in terms of where He directs His will. So since God can only will good then all will be saved.

I'm not sure that Origen himself denied free will and the ultimate mystery of salvation. But the problem is that he did not stress greatly enough how this mystery in itself would leave his own theory in shreds.

There could very well be a fully Orthodox understanding of apocatastasis. A number of eminent theologians such as Hierotheos Vlachos claim for example that St Gregory of Nyssa did not understand apocatastasis in an Origenist sense.


In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

I finished reading an interesting book on Origen not too long ago: " Origen of Alexandria and <St> Maximus the Confessor, an Analysis and Critical Evaluation of their Eschatalogical Doctrines" by Edward Moore. He was a seminarian at St Elias School of Orthodox Theology in nebraska the book was his doctoral dissertation but you can get it at amazon.com. I cant say I agree with all he writes ( He considers himself a "Christian existentialist after the model of Berdyaev" and seems to consider Origens theology superior to Saint Maximus the confessors , who he also fails to call SAINT Maximus...) but it was a thought provoking read none the less. Has anyone else read it here and if so what do you think about it ?

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Scott

I don't know the book so I certainly don't want to criticise it.

But I have never been sure where Edward Moore stands. The Elias School of Theology is associated with the Nebraska Eparchy isn't it? I was asked to write something for an e-journal he was associated with but I could never quite work out where he stood so I didn't.

I think you need to excuse the failure to use the term 'saint'. This is normal in academic discourse. On this forum I would speak of Pope Leo of Rome and Severus of Antioch, meaning no disrespect to either but taking account of the context in which I am writing.

We don't need to keep using the word 'saint' in all contexts to venerate and duly honour a figure.

Best wishes

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

But I have never been sure where Edward Moore stands. The Elias School of Theology is associated with the Nebraska Eparchy isn't it? I was asked to write something for an e-journal he was associated with but I could never quite work out where he stood so I didn't.
I dont know much (anything really) about the seminary. From what little I've read by him ( the book and few articles online) I can understand why one might have second thoughts about writting for his e journal.... I'm not trying to badmouth him by saying that or anything I'm just saying..

[Ian Leyda]

It is unclear to me on what basis any human being can pronounce with confidence whether there is or is not repentance after death.

It is equally unclear that the Fathers and the Scriptures pronounce on this in an unambiguous manner either. Origen's pre-existence of souls was condemned as heretical teaching, but for apocatastasis to be a possibility, then it would seem that repentance after repose must also be a possibility.

Origen seems to be saying that everyone can be saved, but not that everyone must or will be saved. It has to be possible for a soul to continue to deny the salvation that is offered; just as it remains possible that God's love can help redeem even the greatest sinner.

[Ian Leyda]

It is unclear to me on what basis any human being can pronounce with confidence whether there is or is not repentance after death.

It is equally unclear that the Fathers and the Scriptures pronounce on this in an unambiguous manner either. Origen's pre-existence of souls was condemned as heretical teaching, but for apocatastasis to be a possibility, then it would seem that repentance after repose must also be a possibility.


Not to poo-poo Origen's pre-existence of the soul or our Church fathers..... But I am more interested in the issue of "post-existence" of the soul, if you will. Obviously, the idea that we are a soul that leaves the body in death functions oddly in relation to the resurrection of the body. Resurrection is the triumph over death and the fundamental Christian hope, not immortality of the soul.

And the idea of the soul also functions oddly in relation to the very essence of incarnation. For it is the body that is affirmed and redeemed through the incarnation, just as it is in resurrection. Perhaps "Our Bodies-Ourselves" gets it right. Why incarnation and resurrection if the soul has long departed and found its dwelling with God?

Could it be, then, that repentence is possible after resurrection? Does humanity have a second chance at the second coming of Jesus?

[Andrew]

I think the safest and best answer is, "I don't know."

[John Charmley]

The following from St. Isaac seems relevant here:


That we should say or think that the matter of Gehenna is not in reality full of love and mingled with compassion would be an opinion full of blasphemy and an insult to Our Lord God. By saying that He will even hand us over to burning for the sake of sufferings, torment and all sorts of ills, we are attributing to Divine Nature an enmity towards the very rational beings which He created through grace, the same is true if we say He acts or thinks with spite and with a vengeful purpose, as though He was avenging Himself. Among all His actions there is none that is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and end of His dealings with us.

I prefer that to 'I don't know'.

In Christ,

John

[Ian Leyda]

If I understand you correctly, John, in quoting St. Isaac you mean to argue against the possibility of Hell because it is incompatible with God's mercy, love, and compasstion?

I think this is perhaps the best argument against Hell as we understand it to be eternal suffeirng. Jesus' teaching on Love in the SOM is also quite dramatic in this regard.

Jesus says that "perfect love" is to love your enemies. Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Jesus says Love this way because God loves this way. Imitatio Dei. This is a teaching about God's love.

Of course it should be understood, then, that God loves his enemies and those who persecute him. We will see this later in Jesus' prayers on the cross as he practices this counter-intuitive love. For what is it for God to only love those who love him? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And for God to greet only his brothers and sisters, for even the Gentiles do the same.

God loves his enemies, those who persecute him, and perhaps even those who reject him. This is indeed the Glory of God.

Peace,

Ian

[Kris]

Hi,

I do not think that St. Isaac argues against the existance of Gehenna, but rather against the Protestant/Catholic/Islamic notions of Gehenna as a place God angrily sends you to suffer for eternity in retribution for the sins committed against Him.

This, certainly, would cause one to question the loving nature of God and, I'm sure, is the reason for many atheists' rejection of God.

But Gehenna is not such a place, for God is not such a being. Rather, the suffering of Gehenna comes from man's own rejection of his Creator.

I think I posted the article The River of Fire somewhere on this site. It encapsulates St. Isaac's position very well.

In XC,
Kris

[Ian Leyda]

Hi,

But Gehenna is not such a place, for God is not such a being. Rather, the suffering of Gehenna comes from man's own rejection of his Creator.

In XC,
Kris

It may be that Gehenna is not a "place." But there is essentially no difference between these two options. What is the difference between a "place where one suffers" and a "condition of suffering?" There is no difference.

In both of the options above, man suffers for rejecting God. This is the key element. He suffers in the "place" Gehenna. Or he suffers from within himself from "his own" rejection of his Creator.

This simply assigns responsiblitly for suffering to Man, shifting it from God. Man essentially is the cause of his own suffering, rather than God. In the second case, God does not cause suffering but instead permits or condones it.

Yet the outcome is no different. Man suffers for rejecting God, so long as Gehenna exists. So, the argument goes, if God is good and loving, then Gehenna and its suffering simply cannot be.

Indeed, the Problem of Evil mirrors this same incompatibility.

God is all loving. God is all powerful. Then can there be suffering (Gehenna)?

Peace,

Ian

[Antonios]

God is all loving. God is all powerful. Then can there be suffering (Gehenna)?


Dear Ian,

Glory to God for all things!

God has given us the greatest gift which is free will. The moment He takes away our free will, He has lost love for us since there is no other greater gift. Since God does not lose love for us, for He is All-loving, than our will becomes the greatest determining factor in our own salvation. It is when we will to reject God that we suffer, both in this world and the next. So, yes, the man who found himself outside the wedding feast because he was not properly prepared, or the rich man who pleaded with Abraham to send word to his relatives, they were all suffering.

[Ian Leyda]

God has given us the greatest gift which is free will. The moment He takes away our free will, He has lost love for us since there is no other greater gift.

Dear Antonios,

It seems that Scripture is a bit of a "mixed-bag" of free will and divine determinism or "election."

On the one hand are the texts you mentioned that point to our choosing/rejecting God, and there are others that reflect this.

But on the other hand, you have key texts that seem to point to God choosing us (election) and thus "trumping" our free will. The best and most important example of this is Peter's Confession at Caesarea Phillipi:

Jesus asks, "Who do you say that I am?"
Peter replies, "You are the Messiah, Son of the Living God."

Jesus goes on to say that "flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but his Father in heaven." It is the Holy Spirit that speaks our confession of Christ for us, it is Revelation.

Paul attempts to work this problem out (election/free will) somewhat in Romans 9-11, trying to figure out why God's chosen people (Israel) rejected Jesus. He is defending the justice of God (9:14) because it appears that God has not kept his covenant with Israel or that there is no such thing as election. But Paul does argue for election (9:11) so that salvation "depends not on human will or exertion but on God who shows mercy."

He reasons that election is necessary so as not to render the choosing of God itself a "work" worthy of merit. The purity of Grace requires election, essentially.

But Canonically, these principles of free will/election seem to be balanced. There are texts that do seem to assume both.

Would you agree, Antonios?

Peace,

Ian

[Scott Pierson]

God is good and there is suffering on earth why not in the afterlife too ?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

God is good and there is suffering on earth why not in the afterlife too ?

Do teachers still use the stickers which they paste into children's work books as a reward for good work? One type of sticker they used was an angel.

Scott- this is a great question. For it you deserve three angel stickers.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

As a question it is good, as a statement I think it is wrong.

This life is termporal. We only have 70 or so years.

It is easy to comprehend, humanly speaking, God providing a period of trial and testing through various difficulties and adversities. But it is harder to comprehend, humanly speaking, that a God of love would be content with the larger proportion of His creation suffering for ever and ever.

That isn't a counter statement, but it is an answer to the question.

Peter

[Ian Leyda]

God is good and there is suffering on earth why not in the afterlife too ?

This is a good question, Scott. I think one Angel sticker (rather than three) would be better, maybe. (Sorry Fr. Raphael. But you can save them for next time!).

The trouble with this way of thinking is this: The fact that suffering is NOT perpetual on earth has eased some of my difficulty with the problem of suffering/evil. I have had much difficulty with the vast suffering on earth in light of a loving and all-powerful God. God's delay in ending the suffering troubles me. The vastness of the suffering troubles me.

But I know that God will one day put an end to it with the return of Christ.

To say, then, that God permits suffering of a person for eternity, even one person.... That God permits it without intervening.... This is not loving.

If you are watching someone being beaten, even one who deserves it, how long can you watch it go on without thinking in your heart, "ENOUGH!"? Can you watch a beating for 5 hours? 10 hours? A week? Could you watch for eternity?

How long can a loving God watch people suffering in gehenna, even those who deserve it, without being grieved in his heart? Wouldn't a loving God, who has far more compassion, also say "ENOUGH!"

This is torture. And we must call it that. We are speaking of eternal torture, causing (or allowing if you prefer) one to suffer. If God is not the cause of the torture himself, then does he stand by like Saul and hold the coats of those who do it on his behalf? Does he watch without being grieved?

By no means!

Perhaps you can make a case to me that God allows suffering "for a time," as Psalms and Proverbs might describe. But it is very difficult for me to accept that God allows eternal torture, if God is indeed loving and merciful.

And I believe in God's love and mercy.

I do believe Origen argues for the possiblilty that people are saved from Gehenna for this reason. Is this true?

Peace,

Ian

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Ian

As you see I would want to agree generally with you, in the sense that I do not want to find myself telling God what He must do, but I do have a real hope that God will find a way to bring all to Himself in His love and for His glory.

On a side issue I am disturbed that I have somehow achieved 'an esteemed reputation', while Ian, whose posts I have enjoyed seems to have acquired 'a questionable reputation'.

What do these mean? Both Ian and I have obviously received the wrong reputations!!!

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

The trouble with this way of thinking is this: The fact that suffering is NOT perpetual on earth has eased some of my difficulty with the problem of suffering/evil. I have had much difficulty with the vast suffering on earth in light of a loving and all-powerful God. God's delay in ending the suffering troubles me. The vastness of the suffering troubles me.

Yes, I can see that difference and I would agree that it would be harder to understand eternal suffering. The question I posed above doesn’t necessarily imply eternal suffering (though it could ) just the idea that their could be suffering and it would be no more contradictory to Gods nature then the suffering now.

I also hope that all people will come to salvation and I believe that it is even possible for those who have died to be saved from hell via the Grace of God and the prayers of the Church ( we see such in the lives of the saints.) . I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of all being saved.

I don’t think however that one can be loyal to the patristic tradition and say that there is no possibility whatsoever of suffering after death. To say that no one will suffer after death would also be to ignore the tradition of the Church. There are many instances in the lives of the saints in which God has given people divine visions of the "afterlife" in which they see specific people ( usually heresiarchs) suffering the fire of hell**. I just read one instance yesterday in which a monk sees Arius and a few others suffering in their after death state. Is it possible that they might leave that suffering and be rejoined to communion with God ? Possible, I cant say but I wouldn’t say that they are not suffering such things now (or at least at the time the Saints had the visions).

** You could say that God only gave them those vision to scare them in order to keep them in line but I doubt that. God is Truth would he lie to his own children ?

[Peter Farrington]

I agree with you Scott,

and though I tend, in hope, more to the idea of God's mercy being finally received by all, or most (not that He fails to offer it of course), I also have to face the fact that my own Father, Severus of Antioch, did not accept the idea of the reconciliation of all.

So I am hopeful ut would not want to be dogmatic either way. Scott is completely right about the universal idea of some suffering after death, and I have always thought of that as being a purgation by spiritual fire (though not a Purgatory) of that which is still straw in my life. St Adamnan of Iona had a vision of Hell, as did other British saints. These may indeed have been warnings and not direct visions, but I can't help thinking that in their own cultural context they do also show some idea of what judgement means.

It is only the idea of an unending suffering which is harder to reconcile with God's glory, honour, love and mercy.

Peter

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Scott wrote:



I don’t think however that one can be loyal to the patristic tradition and say that there is no possibility whatsoever of suffering after death. To say that no one will suffer after death would also be to ignore the tradition of the Church. There are many instances in the lives of the saints in which God has given people divine visions of the "afterlife" in which they see specific people ( usually heresiarchs) suffering the fire of hell**. I just read one instance yesterday in which a monk sees Arius and a few others suffering in their after death state. Is it possible that they might leave that suffering and be rejoined to communion with God ? Possible, I cant say but I wouldn’t say that they are not suffering such things now (or at least at the time the Saints had the visions).

I also wonder about Christ & the Theotokos. Do they suffer for us now? What of the saints?

A few months ago I bought the book The Suffering of the Impassible God but I haven't had time to go into it yet.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Scott Pierson]

I also wonder about Christ & the Theotokos. Do they suffer for us now? What of the saints?

A few months ago I bought the book The Suffering of the Impassible God but I haven't had time to go into it yet.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Thats sounds like it will be an interesting book Father Raphael. One of those topics that would probably take a real theological genius to navigate. Who is the author and can you get it at Amazon.com ?


Do teachers still use the stickers which they paste into children's work books as a reward for good work? One type of sticker they used was an angel.

Scott- this is a great question. For it you deserve three angel stickers.

Thanks I could use a few angel stickers .

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Scott,


Thats sounds like it will be an interesting book Father Raphael. One of those topics that would probably take a real theological genius to navigate. Who is the author and can you get it at Amazon.com ?


The full title is; The Suffering of the Impassible God, Paul L Gavrilyuk, Oxford Early Christian Studies. I think I got it via Amazon.ca but I would guess you could find it at the regular Amazon also.

From the chapter headings it looks like it would be an interesting read. Quite a few things we've discussed here. And even a chapter called: Nestorianism countered: Cyril's theology of the Divine Kenosis.

If you get a chance to read it let us know how it goes.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andrew]

Elder Sophrony talks a lot about the "hell of love," and such matters. I'm sure Father Seraphim on this site could talk more about his spiritual father and this topic of divine suffering :)

[Ian Leyda]

On a side issue I am disturbed that I have somehow achieved 'an esteemed reputation', while Ian, whose posts I have enjoyed seems to have acquired 'a questionable reputation'.

What do these mean? Both Ian and I have obviously received the wrong reputations!!!

Peter

Dear Peter:

It's very kind of you to stick up for me, Peter. I just noticed those little "scales" on the corner of our posts, and mine do seem to be hanging a bit to the left.

I don't mean to be argumentative, if that is how I've come accross thus far.

I think "questionable reputation" is probably pretty good fit for me, though, because I am mostly here to ask questions and see what people think about things. I am seeking the truth. Often, I raise questions that I don't necessarily ascribe to as a way of inquiry rather than to "argue for" a particular point of view. But I can understand how some would be troubled by those who raise the question of the justice of God or make arguments that deviate from tradition.

On the issue of universal salvation, I understand that both the Biblical witness and church tradition tend to say that it is at best unlikely. But there are witnesses who hold out hope for the salvation of all (Fr. Ware), and I have tried to model those arguments.

I do believe that we can accept as true particular doctrines (the doctrine of hell, for example) and at the same time not like it. I do not like the doctrine of hell and it grieves me deeply, but I have accepted it with the caveat of hope.

As a good son, I do not always like the rules of my Father. But I try to be obedient. I don't think anyone can truly be "obedient" while they are constantly in agreement with all the rules. There is little obedience in going along with all the things you think are great. I am obedient in accepting the teachings on Hell, but I still like to whine a little bit about it.

And quite honestly, I start to worry about myself when I am in agreement with everything the Bible says or thinking it is all wonderful. It usually means I am simply "finding my own view" mirrored to me rather than truly gleaning God's Word.

But perhaps you should all know that I was voted 1st runner up again this year at Seminary for "class heretic" for the second year in a row. It is a noble prize here, indeed. I just wish I had another year to make another good run at it.

Peace be with you all,

Ian

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Ian

When I was at an Evangelical Bible College training for ministry I was involved with many 'catholic' activities and seriously thought I might get thrown out.

I remember having visited a Franciscan friary fro retreat and started to wear a wooden cross and someone at college came up and said 'Why are you wearing that stupid cross!!!?'

In what way might you be a Protestant heretic?

Best wishes

Peter

[Ian Leyda]

In what way might you be a Protestant heretic?

Peter

Dear Peter,

Here at our seminary we have awards that people vote on at the end of the year that are all for fun, kind of like a "roast." Some of the awards are things like "most likely to be kicked out for heresy" and "dirtiest Bible."

None of it is serious at all. I got nominated twice for the heresy award because I have become known for asking lots of tough questions (like I do on these posts).

I also study at more of an academic institution in which a certain amount of freedom is promoted in thinking for the sake of inquiry. Though we have our share of mean and foolish people here (like those who hassled you about your catholic interests and wearing of the wooden cross), nobody gets kicked out for heresy.

Peace,

Ian

[Scott Pierson]

Ephesians 2:4-12
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him In love
He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace
which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight
He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him
with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,



2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.


How does the Church understand what is being said in these two verses in relation to each other. One states that the Lord works all things after the counsel of His Will and the other states that God wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. And that God according to His will , will bring about “an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.” This summing up being connected to redemption and forgiveness.

Christ also states that He will not loose any of them that His father has given Him. The Bible goes on to state that all of mankind was given to Christ:
God has given His Son "authority over ALL flesh, to give eternal life to ALL whom He has given Him" (John 17:2). "The Father has given ALL things into the Son's hands" (John 3:35) and so "ALL flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6)

These and other similar parts of the Bible are confusing me because there are other verses which to my sinful mind seem to say exactly the opposite. How can they be reconciled. I was told once that all people will have eternal life but some of them will have it in hell but that makes no sense because hell is called the second death and can not be considered “life”… so when it says He will give eternal life to all He has been given (all flesh) it cant mean everlasting hell for some of them can it.. Possible a finite suffering in hell leading up to salvation at a later time, but how would eternal hell go along with that verse.

[Ian Leyda]

These and other similar parts of the Bible are confusing me because there are other verses which to my sinful mind seem to say exactly the opposite. How can they be reconciled...

so when it says He will give eternal life to all He has been given (all flesh) it cant mean everlasting hell for some of them can it.. Possible a finite suffering in hell leading up to salvation at a later time, but how would eternal hell go along with that verse.

Not to heap more fiery coals atop Scott's head, but....

The teachings of Jesus on Hell in the Gospels are not quite consistent regarding its "eternality."

1. In some passages, Jesus speaks of Hell as eternal: (ex. Mark 9:42-50).

2. In others, Jesus speaks of Hell in terms of "destruction:" (Matt 10:28).

For the sake of brevity, I will not deal with them all. But it is interesting that Luke omits this portion of the verse in his parallel (Lk 12:5). Luke amends the verse a bit and then omits Matthew's "rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

But the point is this: destruction and eternal are mutually exclusive. You cannot be destroyed and eternal at the same time. To be destroyed is to "cease to be." That which is eternal is to "perpetually be."

Is a person destroyed in Hell or is he eternal?

Usually, the answer depends upon who we think is headed for Hell. If it is a fellow we were once fond of, who was charming and kind, we prefer he "cease to be" and not suffer too much. We go for destruction.

But if it is a fellow that was particularly mean to us, did much harm in the world, or was especially detestable, then we tend to prefer that he "perpetually be" in Hell. We go for eternal suffering.

Of course, I say some of this tongue-in-cheek. But it is quite true. Our beliefs about Hell say much about us and the way we think of justice and mercy. We have a hard time beliving that both Gandhi and Josef Stalin are together in eternal fire (don't we?). One was kind and carried many of the virtues of Jesus. Another was a terrible man who caused much suffering.

Will we say the murderous "Christians" of the Spanish Inquisition are destined for heaven while kind people who had no faith in Jesus are destined for Hell? I haven't figured this one out, myself.

Frankly, I prefer Hell be among God's great mysteries. And I think it is indeed.

Peace,

Ian

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

How does the Church understand what is being said in these two verses in relation to each other. One states that the Lord works all things after the counsel of His Will and the other states that God wills that none should perish but that all should come to repentance. And that God according to His will , will bring about “an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.” This summing up being connected to redemption and forgiveness.

Christ also states that He will not loose any of them that His father has given Him. The Bible goes on to state that all of mankind was given to Christ:
God has given His Son "authority over ALL flesh, to give eternal life to ALL whom He has given Him" (John 17:2). "The Father has given ALL things into the Son's hands" (John 3:35) and so "ALL flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6)

These and other similar parts of the Bible are confusing me because there are other verses which to my sinful mind seem to say exactly the opposite. How can they be reconciled. I was told once that all people will have eternal life but some of them will have it in hell but that makes no sense because hell is called the second death and can not be considered “life”… so when it says He will give eternal life to all He has been given (all flesh) it cant mean everlasting hell for some of them can it.. Possible a finite suffering in hell leading up to salvation at a later time, but how would eternal hell go along with that verse.

Dear Scott,

Here is what St John of Damascus writes about predestination:


One should note that God foreknows all things but that He does not predestine them all. Thus, He foreknows the things that depend upon us, but He does not predestine them- because neither does He will evil to be done nor does He force virtue. And so, predestination is the result of the divine command made with foreknowledge. Those things which do not depend upon us, however, He predestines in accordance with His foreknowledge. For, through His foreknowledge, He has already decided all things beforehand in accordance with His goodness and justice.

I underlined the sentence where St John is correlating divine predestination & human free will. Actually from a footnote in my copy of St John of Damascus', Orthodox Faith, this sentence comes from St Maximos.

This sentence is interesting for it seems to imply that God's predestined providence works in accordance with our free will; a bit like having a pot of cold water sitting on the table before the child burns its hand on the stove. There's a breathtaking humility in this divine love.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Ian,

If we go back to St. Isaac's:

That we should say or think that the matter of Gehenna is not in reality full of love and mingled with compassion would be an opinion full of blasphemy and an insult to Our Lord God. By saying that He will even hand us over to burning for the sake of sufferings, torment and all sorts of ills, we are attributing to Divine Nature an enmity towards the very rational beings which He created through grace, the same is true if we say He acts or thinks with spite and with a vengeful purpose, as though He was avenging Himself. Among all His actions there is none that is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and end of His dealings with us.

we begin to get some of the tools which which help us discuss this most difficult of matters.

St. Isaac seems to be warning us not to think that we can read the mind of God, as well against equating His will with our own.

This directs us towards the biblical text that hell will not be eternal and that God will be ‘all in all’ (1 Cor. 15:28). It also puts one in mind of other such texts. The Bible tells us that Jesus "gave Himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due season" (1Tim. 2:6), and that although all are now dying in Adam, "so in Christ will all be made alive--but each in his own order" (1Cor. 15:22-28.)

I would not want to get into the old Protestant habit here of exchanging texts, because of that is without end, and usually without much profit, hence the reference to St. Isaac. St. Gregory of Nyssa also has wise things to say on this theme.

Salvation is, through Our Lord Jesus Christ, available to us all. What the passages about judgement in the New Testament remind us is that our disobedience has consequences, and that through it we bring suffering upon ourselves. The amount of time we will suffer is not known to us, but if we look inward even now, we know we suffer for our sins.

It needs stressing that the Church has pronounced neither in favour nor against apocatastasis, so one needs to be careful over how one deals with the topic, not least on a pastoral level, where it can easily be vulgarised and misrepresented.

Although the Church has not pronounced, a Roman Catholic friend of mine has reminded me that the last Pope did, and I hope that my Orthodox brothers and sisters might allow me to quote from one of his addresses:

“Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it.” (General Audience — July 28, 1999)

This seems a wise saying, and something on which we can all ponder and pray for guidance.

INXC

John

[Scott Pierson]

Thank you for the response Father Raphael


Those things which do not depend upon us, however, He predestines in accordance with His foreknowledge.

I have heard about that in regards to predistination and salvation but It seems that those verses are implying that God has forknowledge that all will come to repentance and that this will bring about " an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth."


He foreknows the things that depend upon us, but He does not predestine them-

It also seems that God forknew that: "ALL flesh shall see the salvation of God" (Luke 3:6)

And that God forknew that His authority over all flesh will bring about the salvation of all flesh. ""authority over ALL flesh, to give eternal life to ALL whom He has given Him" (John 17:2)


I'm not saying that IS the correct understanding I'm just saying that it seems to be implying that.

[John Charmley]

Dear Scott,

I am sure that Fr. Raphael will give good advice about how to read the passages you mention; one of the many features of Orthodoxy which refreshes my spirit is that it avoids the citing of Biblical texts in isolation from tradition and the teachings of the Church; being familiar with Protestant modes of discourse, I am only too well aware where that can lead.


Although we have been dealing here with apocatastasis, St. Cyril of Alexandria reminds us that the words 'universal salvation' can have another reading, which may be of interest in the context of this discussion. This comes from his commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans:



Paul throws light on the purpose of God’s plan when he says that Christ became the servant of the circumcised to show God’s fidelity. God had promised the Jewish patriarchs that he would bless their offspring and make it as numerous as the stars of heaven. This is why the divine Word himself, who as God holds all creation in being and is the source of its well-being, appeared in the flesh and became man. He came into this world in human flesh not to be served, but, as he himself said, to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.


Christ declared that his coming in visible form was to fulfil the promise made to Israel. I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he said. Paul was perfectly correct, then, in saying that Christ became a servant of the circumcised in order to fulfil the promise made to the patriarchs and that God the Father had charged him with this task, as also with the task of bringing salvation to the Gentiles, so that they too might praise their Saviour and Redeemer as the Creator of the universe. In this way God’s mercy has been extended to all men, including the Gentiles, and it can be seen that the mystery of the divine wisdom contained in Christ has not failed in its benevolent purpose. In the place of those who fell away the whole world has been saved.


The reminder that in the first generation of Christians there was a debate about whether Christ's words were even applicable to the gentiles, should give us all pause for thought!


INXC

John

[Ian Leyda]

Dear Ian,

I would not want to get into the old Protestant habit here of exchanging texts, because of that is without end, and usually without much profit, hence the reference to St. Isaac. St. Gregory of Nyssa also has wise things to say on this theme.

John

Dear John,

What do you mean by "Protestant habit of exchanging texts?"

Peace,

Ian

[Peter Farrington]

Hi Ian

I guess John means 'proof texting'. Which from an Orthodox, and I would suppose an RC context, means taking scriptures out of their historical context AND out of the context of the Tradition of the Church.

As I am sure you know, Orthodoxy does not read Scripture in a vacuum, just as serious Protestants don't either. But the vacuum tends not to be filled with academic research so much as with the past archive, as it were, of interpretation. Scripture is read with a patristic hermenuetic.

A bad type of reading of Scripture, and incidentally of patristics, is merely to use texts to prove a point apart from their context.

But I am sure you are aware of all that. Since I am reading some books about Judaism at the moment it is clear to me that the 'reading Scripture in a Tradition' also requires, for me, a greater understanding of the Jewish context in which it was written.

Best wishes

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear John,

What do you mean by "Protestant habit of exchanging texts?"

Peace,

Ian

Dear Ian,

Only what Peter has described; I guess I must have moved in argumentative company!

The St. Cyril commentary has set me thinking about 'tradition', and I must look elsewhere here to see what has been written already before posting, but it occurs to me that in the Jerusalem Church there were those whose 'tradition' was threatened by St. Paul's taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. It is a reminder to those, like myself, of a fairly conservative disposition, that what might appear to be novel readings of the Gospel can turn out to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Those who wanted to keep the message for the Jews may have seen themselves as conservative defenders of a tradition, but that did not make them correct. The means by which the Church discerns the will of the Holy Spirit is a complex subject - but it is as well, for the rest of us, that it prevailed with St. Paul.

In Christ,

John

[Ian Leyda]

St. Isaac seems to be warning us not to think that we can read the mind of God, as well against equating His will with our own.


Dear John,

If this is our discussion at this point:
1. Does Hell exist?
2. Is Hell eternal or possibly temporal?

If our discussion is mainly surrounding the nature of Hell, then I do not think St. Isaac's argument is helpful here at all.

St. Isaac argues in this quote about the justice of God. He is not exactly warning us not to read or question the mind of God. This makes no sense, because that is what Theology is. Can we discern the will of God without reading or questioning the mind of God? I think this is the definition of theology.

Instead, St. Isaac warns us here not to question the character of God. He warns us not to question the motivation of God. This portion summs up his argument:

St. Isaac: "Among all His actions there is none that is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and end of His dealings with us."

He is arguing that whatever God does is by definition "loving." It is blasphemous, therefore, to question God's character. We do not understand how Hell and sending to eternal suffering is loving, but it just is.

Because God sends people to Hell, it is by definition loving.

This is questionable and circular logic, unfortunately.

Peace,

Ian

[Ian Leyda]

I would not want to get into the old Protestant habit here of exchanging texts, because of that is without end, and usually without much profit, hence the reference to St. Isaac. St. Gregory of Nyssa also has wise things to say on this theme.


Dear John,

I asked above about what you meant by this comment because it bothered me. As a Protestant who had just brought forward two quotations from Scripture to raise a question, I felt that your comments were disrespectful.

Peace,

Ian

[John Charmley]

Dear John,

I asked above about what you meant by this comment because it bothered me. As a Protestant who had just brought forward two quotations from Scripture to raise a question, I felt that your comments were disrespectful.

Peace,

Ian

Dear Ian,

I am sorry if they seemed so, they were not meant that way - they were rather addressed at someone else who had just quoted a few texts - me! They were certainly not aimed at you, and in retrospect they weren't the most tactful words, so I hope you will accept my apologies.

When you write:

He is arguing that whatever God does is by definition "loving." It is blasphemous, therefore, to question God's character. We do not understand how Hell and sending to eternal suffering is loving, but it just is.

Because God sends people to Hell, it is by definition loving.

This is questionable and circular logic, unfortunately.

you may, of course, be correct, but there are other ways of reading him here.

St. Isaac is pointing out that we do not know how the only Just judge will judge us. He seems to be criticising the notion that God's justice can be compared with its human equivalent; God does not calculate a tariff. As he points out elsewhere: 'How can you call God just', when you consider the parable of the workers paid for a full day when they worked only an hour? Or the parable of the Prodigal Son, restored fully to his father on the basis of mere repentance? St Isaac concludes, "Do not call God just, for his justice is not evident in the things concerning you.'

We do not know who will end up in Hell, or why, or even what Hell consists of. Is it not possible to read St. Isaac as warning us against the sort of 'hell fire' attitude that is so common in many places?

When Shakespeare wrote that 'the quality of mercy is not strained', St. Isaac had been there long before him. As he writes in Homily 8:

“And what is a merciful heart? It is the heart's burning for the sake of the entire creation, for men, for birds, for animals, for demons and for every created thing; and by the recollection and sight of them the eyes of a merciful man pour forth abundant tears. From the strong and vehement mercy which grips his heart and from his great compassion, his heart is humbled and he cannot bear to hear or see any injury or slight sorrow in creation. For this reason he continually offers up tearful prayer, even for irrational beasts, for the enemies of the truth and for those who harm him, that they be protected and receive mercy. And in like manner he even prays for the family of reptiles because of the great compassion that burns in his heart without measure in the likeness of God.”


To return to the subject of this thread, Origen wrote that: 'The same sun that melts wax hardens mud'.

The Saint's teaching has important soteriological implications. If we believe we are too sinful to be saved, is that not another sin born of pride? A merciful God does not want us to despair; the Devil may have other ideas. If we believe this, the Evil One stays in control of our lives, and if we think God is actually responsible for our plight and that there is no way out of this, then we are doing the Devil's work.

You are correct when you say Hell is an ineffable mystery, but the Fathers, like the tradition of the Church, offers wisdom to us. The Church has never preached universal salvation as a dogma, but nor has it rejected it. Where the Church has not so pronounced, we can find guidance from the Fathers, and not simply from our own reading of the Scriptures.

Personally, I have always been troubled by the preaching of hell fire for the damned - but that may be because if I were judged by a human calculus I should be sure to be bound for that place. It is only through the salvation offered by Our merciful Saviour that a sinner can be saved. Praise be to Him!


INXC


John

[Ian Leyda]

I hope you will accept my apologies.



Sure will. Consider it forgotten.

Ian

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Here is Fr Georges Florovsky's (from Byzantine Frs of the 6th- 8th Centuries) presentation of St Maximus the Confessor on apokatastasis:


This is the second stage of spiritual restoration — apokatastasis. But it is not yet the summit or the limit of spiritual ascent. In contemplation, the mind cognizes the intellectual or mental world and God as Creator, Provider, and Judge. However, the mind must leave the mental or intellectual world and ascend even higher to the mysterious darkness of Divinity itself. This is the goal and problem of the "ordeal" — meeting with God and tasting, or rather, pre-tasting Divine bliss. This is the level and condition of pure prayer. The mind rises higher than forms and ideas, and commun -icates with Divine unity and peace. It cognizes the transsubstantial Trinity in this world, and is itself renewed in the image of the Trinity. On the heights the hermit becomes the temple and cloister of the Logos. It finds repose on the all-good couch of God, and the mystery of ineffable unity is accomplished. This is marriage and betrothal to the Logos. In essence the Christian travels his whole path together with Christ, for he lives in Christ, and Christ in him. Fulfillment of the commandments unites with Christ, for they are his energies. Contemplation leads to Christ, the Logos Incarnate, as to the source and focus of an ideal world.

St. Maximus speaks much and in great detail about Christ mysteriously moving in and living in believing souls. Here he is leaning on St. Gregory of Nazianzus, especially St. Gregory’s Orations for Christmas and Easter. This is one of St. Maximus1 motives of asceticism — a life in Christ. Another motive also goes back to St. Gregory: the contemplation of the Trinity. Here, though, St. Maximus is closer to Evagrius Ponticus. Through Evagrius, he received Origen’s legacy. He handled it, however, freely. He bore Origen’s experience and piety in mind, and transformed it in his own synthesis. In addition, he resolutely rejected Origen’s metaphysical conjectures and conclusions. In general, St. Maximus was not very original in his asceticism. All of his ideas can be found in earlier teachers and writers. St. Maximus wants only to repeat accepted doctrine, but he gives a synthesis and not a compilation.

Man’s fate is decided in the Church. The Church is the image and likeness of God because it is united: "for through the grace of faith, it accomplishes in believers the same unblended unity which the Creator, who contains everything, produces in different existing things through his endless insight and wisdom." The Church unites all believers in itself. Rather, Christ himself unites and reunites with himself his creations, which have received their very existence from him. At the same time the Church is the image and likeness of the whole world, a kind of microcosm. The Church is man’s likeness, a kind of "macro-humanity" as it were. The Church takes shape and grows until it accommodates all who are called and foreordained. Then the end of the world will come.Then time and all movement will cease. Everything will stop, for it will settle. The world will die, for it will grow decrepit. Its visible side will die, but it will be resurrected anew from the obsolete on the day of the expected resurrection. Man will rise in the world or with the world, as a part with the whole, as the great in the small. Resurrection will be a renewal and an animation. Decay will no longer exist. God will be everything in everything. Everything will become a perfect symbol of the single God -head.Everything will manifest God alone. Nothing will remain outside of God — έκτος Θεου.

St. Maximus recalls the well-known analogy of white hot iron. However, in this Divine flame neither nature, nor man, nor even man’s "despotism" or freedom will be consumed. In his eschatological reflections St. Maximus is very close to St. Gregory of Nyssa and, through him, close to Origen. His whole scheme of thought is the same: disintegration and restoration of the primordial harmony — that is, apokatastasis, but an apokatastasis of nature, not of freedom. "Nature" will be restored in its entirety. This does not yet mean, however, that freedom, too, will be redefined as good. It does not yet mean, for freedom or will is a special reality which in no way is reducible to anything else. One may think that St. Maximus learned about this originality and the irrationality of the will from the experience of ascetic struggle. To recognize good does not mean to love or choose it. Man is also capable of not falling in love with the recognized good. Here St. Maximus directly parts with St. Gregory of Nyssa.

The Logos will be everything for everybody, but it will not be a blessed Sabbath and repose for everybody. For the righteous the fire of Divinity will be revealed as an enlightening light. For the impious it will be revealed as a singeing, burning flame. For people contending and mustering their natural powers in the "ordeal" it will be joy and repose. For the unprepared it can prove to be only unrest and pain. All nature will be restored in its primordial and natural measures in the unflagging apokatastasis. God in his immeasurable love will embrace all creation, the good and the evil. But not everyone will be allowed to share in his love and joy, and not everyone who is allowed will share in the same or similar ("analogical") way. St. Maximus makes a distinction between deification through grace — κατά χάριν — and union or unification without grace — παρά την χάριν. Everything which exists communes with God to the extent that it has its very existence from him and is kept by his acting powers.

This is, however, still not beneficial communion. In fulfilling the fates God will restore the full entirety of his creation not only in existence but also in eternal existence. But not in good-existence, for good-existence cannot be given from without, cannot be given without the demanding and accepting of love. God will give to sinners and return everything they lost through sin, restoring their souls in the fullness of their natural forces and capabilities. They will receive the capacity for spiritual knowledge and moral evaluation. They will cognize God. Perhaps they will even lose memory of sin and come to God in a certain understanding — τη έπιγνώσει. However, they will not receive communion with his blessings — ου τη μεθεξει των αγαθών. Only the righteous are capable of savoring and enjoying. Only they receive communion with Life, while people of evil will who have collapsed in their thoughts and desires are far from God, are devoid of Life, and constantly decay and constantly die. They will not taste Life, and will be tormented by belated repentance, by the consciousness of the senselessness of the path they took to the very end. This will be ineffable sorrow and sadness. According to St. Maximus’ notions, it is not God but the sinner himself who prepares his own torment and grief on judgment day. For bliss and joy are possible only through the free concordance of human will with the Divine will, through a free and creative fulfillment of the Divine definitions, through illumination and transformation of the will itself in creation of his commandments.

St. Maximus does not assume that clear cognition of the truth must inevitably determine the will to truth. St. Maximus flatly rejects Origen’s conception of the apokatastasis. Certainly, evil and sin are only in the will, but this does not mean that they will disperse like phantoms. As an ascetic and a theologian who defended the reality of human freedom and human will in Christ, St. Maximus could not help but be at variance with Origen and the Origenists in their intellectualism.

In the distinction of fate beyond the grave is the final basis and justification for the "ordeal." With a composing force it enters the last judgment. For man is called to creativity and work, called to the task of installing God’s will in his own. Only people of good will, people of righteous aspiration, will find satisfaction in God’s destiny, and the limit and fulfillment of their lives in the love and joy of communion with God. For the others, God’s will will remain an external act.

Deification is the goal of creation, and for its sake everything which came into being was created. And everything will be deified — God will be everything, and in everything. This will not, however, be violence. Deification itself must be accepted and experienced in freedom and love. St. Maximus came to this conclusion from a precise Christological doctrine of two wills and two energies.

I've lost track of the conversation by this point and cannot remember if anyone said that any of the Frs (St Gregory of Nyssa?) claimed an ultimate apokatastasis or not.

As you'll be able to see from the quote above St Maximus apparently held to an apokatastasis that took account of human free will in the sense of the possibility of rejecting what is good. Fr Georges certainly stresses how St Maximus has will- both Divine & human- at the centre of his focus. (by the way there's an incredible theology for overcoming addictions in this if anyone is ever interested in reading it this way).

Anyway, at least as I read it, the ability of human will to freely choose good or evil seems to be the point beyond which St Maximus will not go. It seems that in St Maximus' vision, God's will does not override the human will to reject Him. And in a sense I wonder if this isn't the point- the doorway- beyond which we cannot go in this issue with any certainty.

Basically the point we can go up to but not pass beyond at present is understanding if human will can ultimately resist God's goodness or not.

And since I just said that I think this is the Patristic point beyond which we do not know the answer... I'd better stop here myself. :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anthony]

As you'll be able to see from the quote above St Maximus apparently held to an apokatastasis that took account of human free will in the sense of the possibility of rejecting what is good. Fr Georges certainly stresses how St Maximus has will- both Divine & human- at the centre of his focus. (by the way there's an incredible theology for overcoming addictions in this if anyone is ever interested in reading it this way).

Would you like to expand on this last point, Father? I must admit I have only been following this thread sporadically, so I don't have my bearings in the discussion, but it seems important.

Anthony

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Would you like to expand on this last point, Father? I must admit I have only been following this thread sporadically, so I don't have my bearings in the discussion, but it seems important.

Anthony
Do you mean what is in the brackets or what precedes it?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anthony]

Do you mean what is in the brackets or what precedes it?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

I meant what is in the brackets.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Scott wrote:


There could be universal salvation without God overiding human free will though couldnt there be? The fact that it is possible for a person to stay unrightous and will contrary to God for ever and ever doesnt mean anyone will in fact do that. for example, isnt there technically a possiblity that a deified saint in heaven could still use his free will to will against God.


I don't have the time myself right now to explore more fully St Maximus's ideas on this. My sense of what I read however is that St Maximus always has the purpose of creation as the overall context when he speaks of these things. And this purpose is to find its fulfillment in Christ Who is the end and definition of man & creation. Spiritually speaking this fulfillment refers to deification for man is not only called to follow God; he is rather called to be remade in the ancient image of His Maker, whom he in turn is made in the image of. Thus St Maximus' vision is cosmological although he does speak very much about what we as individuals must do- adopt the ascetic life- in order to fulfill our part in this whole cosmological mystery of redemption.

In a way this explains St Maximus' stress on human will. This is where the whole mystery of cosmological redemption really is played out since man is a microcosm of the creation, including the Divine. Redemption of the whole is woven into his being & bones if you want.

But what of his will as this is being achieved? My sense at least (and please don't take this as definitive in any way- keep reading yourself and listening to others) is that for St Maximus much of what we call 'free will' is the result of the Fall & the uncertainty that goes with choice as it presents itself to us and also acts passionately. The will then as it follows God's will, accords with Christ's will & is gradually healed. It finds a stability and certainty it did not have before for naturally it is drawn to what is good like a plant to the sun.

I would take it that this description is consistent with what we are speaking about. Will then will be stable and without the confusion we experience now. It will have one focus to it. I don't want to speak definitively- but if then will does not change either towards the good or the bad- if it maintains its one focus according to its disposition, then I think this is explained by how the will chooses differently then.

To say it the other way around: we're not talking about God's will binding human will. Rather we're talking about how human free will as it stands before Christ chooses in a different manner from the way in which we often think of free will now.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Father Raphael,

Thank you for these very helpful posts, which deal with such care with these deep mysteries.

I went back to look at the original condemnation of Origen's teaching on universal salvation and found it more precise that I had remembered, so it may be worth citing the text of Justinian's 9th anathema:


IF anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious
men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a
restoration (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious
men, let him be anathema.

From those better informed on these matters than I am, it would be interesting to know how the Church has taught this anathema should be read.

INXC

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I meant what is in the brackets.



We often in modern times think of the human will almost as a mechanical force. To accomplish something just do it. So in the case of the passions & addictions etc we have the underlying idea that inability to change is mainly a question of lack of will power. The answer according to this is mainly to set ourselves more firmly to the grind stone.

The Frs however such as St Maximus explain how sin distorts the will's desiring & choosing power so that will now desires both what is good and bad. The point is that the will always desires but now in a sinful way. The Fall has not changed how we are by nature desiring creatures. But it has changed in the way in which choice is now attracted by what is harmful to itself. This explains what addiction & passionate behaviour is- an increasingly distorted desire towards what is harmful.

Thus this is why 'just changing our behaviour' never breaks addictions or passions. This is why even when we get to the point where we hate our behaviour we still are unable to change it. For the problem isn't lack of will power so much as it is that the will must be resurrected in order to now begin to be attracted by what is good.

Precisely it is in this sense that we can see that the ascetic life has been given us by the Church, and especially following the commandments of Christ, in order to transform the will. Not just like exercises get us used to doing some new physical activity. But rather that the practice of the Orthodox life changes us from the inside so that in Christ we literally desire something different from what we do now.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anthony]

Thank you Father, that is very clear and very helpful. Please excuse my slowness.

Anthony

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Father Raphael,

Thank you for these very helpful posts, which deal with such care with these deep mysteries.

I went back to look at the original condemnation of Origen's teaching on universal salvation and found it more precise that I had remembered, so it may be worth citing the text of Justinian's 9th anathema:

From those better informed on these matters than I am, it would be interesting to know how the Church has taught this anathema should be read.

INXC

John

Dear John,

A good question. The way I take it is that this means that there is no inevitable abolishment of hell.

Somehow I think that looked at in this way, this still allows for many other questions, but which I am having a hard time answering.

It seems to keep coming back to the question of will.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kris]

A good question. The way I take it is that this means that there is no inevitable abolishment of hell.


I would agree with Fr. Raphael. Although the anathema makes it absolutely clear that there will be no general restoration of all those in hell, it does not rule out the possibility of individuals being restored to Christ through repentance.

In XC,
Kris

[John Charmley]

Dear Father Raphael/Kris,

Many thanks for these posts. I think Father Raphael is correct is seeing the question of free will as being at the heart of this.

According to St. Cyril of Alexandria, the image of God in which man was created (Gen 1: 26) was his own free - will, and the consequence of his disobedience was the loss of that free will.

This would mean that we have a defective free will, but one that can still rightly incline, with help. But, as St. Clement reminds us, even out of evil, God can make good. He takes the example of Joseph, sold by his brothers into slavery, who later said to them:


"But now, do not therefore be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life ... so now it was not you who sent me here, but God, and He has made me a father of Pharaoh, and lord of all" Gen 45: 5-9; "Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive" Exod. 50: 19, 20.


He also made the following point:


If you remove the wickedness of Judas and annul his treachery you take away likewise the cross of Christ and His passion; and if there were no cross, then principalities and powers would have not Been stripped nor triumphed over by the wood of the cross (Col. 2: 15). Had there been no death of Christ, there would certainly have been no resurrection and there would have been no "firstbom from the dead" Col. 1: 8; and then there would have been for us no hope of resurrection.


These are points over which to ponder. They certainly remind us that God's ways are mysterious to us, and call us to obedience.

INXC


John

[Antonios]

Thus this is why 'just changing our behaviour' never breaks addictions or passions. This is why even when we get to the point where we hate our behaviour we still are unable to change it. For the problem isn't lack of will power so much as it is that the will must be resurrected in order to now begin to be attracted by what is good.


The words of the Serentiy Prayer used by Alcoholics Anonymous comes to mind...


"God, Grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and wisdom to know the difference"

[Ian Leyda]

As I have been following the conversation regarding the issue of free will, I wish to cite a noteworthy modern philosopher who has readily pondered the matter: Forrest Gump.

Do we have a destiny or is life a box of chocolates from which we choose?

Forrest Gump says thus: "I don't know. Maybe it's both."

I think Forrest may be right on this one.

Scripture at various points seems to affirm both free will and divine determinance, at least on a small scale. Free will is seen in the choices the characters make. But those choices are also part of the larger God-directed history going on.

1. In the Pharaoh in the accounts of the 10 plagues, Pharaoh "hardens his own heart" in stubbornness against God (8:15,32; 9:34; etc.). But in other cases, God "hardens Pharaoh's heart" (9:12; 10:1,20,27; etc.). Whose will is directing these events? Both, it seems.

It is hard to detect a pattern in the case of Pharaoh and the plagues that reflects what St. Cyril is talking about, a pattern of initial free will and human disobedience that leads later to a bondage of the will. (Though Paul seems to think this way in Romans 1). There is no orderly progression of Pharaoh hardens--to--God hardens.

Pharaoh's choices at points were his own, yet set within the context of God's larger plan of salvation and self-revelation. Pharaoh was stubborn of his own will, hardening his own heart. But God also hardened Paraoh's heart, it says (Ex. 14:4), so that God may glorify himself and reveal himself.

There are human choices being made of free will, but there also is an overarching history going on that God is directing according to a plan.

The example of Joseph and his brothers mentioned earlier by John also helps to illustrate my point:

"But now, do not therefore be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life ... so now it was not you who sent me here, but God, and He has made me a father of Pharaoh, and lord of all" Gen 45: 5-9;

"Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? But as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive" Exod. 50: 19, 20.

Will we say that God is responsible for the evil done by Pharaoh because he hardened his heart? Or will we say that God did evil himself by causing Joseph to be sold into slavery? The good ends do not justify the evil means. God doing evil?

Instead, I think that there is indeed a depiction of free will and good/wicked choices in both the Exodus and Joseph stories. But those choices also function within the scope of God's larger salvific metanarrative.

Yes, there are individual stories writing themselves according to human free will. But they function within God's larger plan for human history set from the beginning (1Cor 2: 6-9). God has inconceivably good things prepared for those who love him. Thus there is evil, but God "means for good" and has destined it.

This is in some sense the implication of eschatology, that there is a human history working itself out but within the context of its own end (at the coming of the Son of Man).

St. Forrest?

Peace,

Ian

[William Swabey]

Vlad, congratulations !

It is a delight to me to see someone so enthused by Origen. He is a fantastically spiritual writer and so fertile for the 'origination' (forgive
the pun) of spiritual ideas. He is like having a poet and theologian
all in one.

One of my favourite passages you will know, but it gives me so
much joy, so other readers may enjoy it too. Currently working on Romans, his commentary comes out with this on a text which currently would mean a lot to many. Its from Romans 8:18 onwards '...I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the
glory that is to to be revealed to us..' and so on. Paul then includes
futility in creation as well. Given a difficult world, as it always has been,
this is wonderfully relevant.

As you will already know, what Origen does with this is superb, and I've
prayed with this for years. Keep it - its worth keeping, pastorally, theologically, personally, humanly and spiritually :

"...and the stars have been compelled against their will to be subject to futility, as a result of causes long past ; yet in the hope of a future reward they do not do their own will but the will of the creator, by whom they they
have been appointed to these duties'.

On First Principles. 2.8.3

It gives one a bigger view of creation and one's place in it, perhaps.
Its also very good to pray with at night when looking upwards.

Well done. And no, Crouzel was right. Origen may not have been a saint
but he was certainly no heretic. Merely a rather unique and special theologian.

Congratulations.

William Swabey

[Owen Jones]

The first use of the term theology is found in Plato. Plato described the sophists as believing that either a) God does not exist or b) if He does exist he cannot help us or c) if He can help us, He can be bribed with sacrifices. Plato said that none of these three assertions could possibly be true and he defined that truth as theology. We might call that an apophatic definition of the term, which I think stands the test of time.

[Theophrastus]

Dear Father Raphael/Kris,

Many thanks for these posts. I think Father Raphael is correct is seeing the question of free will as being at the heart of this.



Yes, I agree the question of free-will is the crucial question, but it's free-will of a certain kind: post-Judgement free-will. Does free-will exist after the final Judgement?

[John Charmley]

Yes, I agree the question of free-will is the crucial question, but it's free-will of a certain kind: post-Judgement free-will. Does free-will exist after the final Judgement?

Dear Jetavan,

An interesting question. I would have thought the answer was that our kind of free-will cannot then exist because if we are joined with God, we would do His will. But this may be incorrect.

In Matthew 7:21 Our Lord says:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

If that is what we must do to enter the kingdom of Heaven, how much more will we do it when we attain to the kingdom?

It would be good, however, to hear from others on this important point.


In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

I think I would want to say that the genuinely free-will is that which is free to do the will of God, to do that which is pleasing to God, whereas what we call free-will in our own experience is not free at all but is constrained in so many ways which tend to lead us to choose that which is sin.

True freedom is not freedom to sin, but freedom to live as God wills us to live and created us to live.

Peter

[Scott Pierson]

If we can be free as finite beings without the power to choose sin then why didn't God create us that way from the beginning instead of waiting until some later point?

I ask because the reason most people give for the question "Why did God create us with the power to reject God and sin?" is " Because God wants to insure free will". But if that capability isn't necessary for free will and its possible for finite beings to attain a state in which sin isn't possible why not make us that way from the beginning?

Is it because God wants us to choose that state for ourselves?

I believe Origen stated that in the age to come a fall will be possible but no one will choose to fall because they will be so infused with Gods love and such. But some say that was added to his wittings (Possibly in "on First Principles" (I will look through it and find out)) later or put in to avoid controversy because no one liked the idea that a second fall could be possible.

[John Charmley]

If we can be free as finite beings without the power to choose sin then why didn't God create us that way from the beginning instead of waiting until some later point?

I ask because the reason most people give for the question "Why did God create us with the power to reject God and sin?" is " Because God wants to insure free will". But if that capability isn't necessary for free will and its possible for finite beings to attain a state in which sin isn't possible why not make us that way from the beginning?

Is it because God wants us to choose that state for ourselves?



Dear Scott,

A thought in response from the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus:


As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne
along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and
various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He
simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity
which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of
righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of
attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness
of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves
we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the
power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its
height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and
death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had
before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the
one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with
hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but
showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him
the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the
holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the
righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the
corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other
thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness?


This comes from c.130 A.D., and shows how this problem exercised Christians from the beginning - but it offers us a valuable insight into the way the early Church answered the question.

There are many other examples from the Fathers, but this is the earliest one I know; that is not to subscribe to the idea that 'earlier is better', simply to point up the continuity in the teaching of the Church.


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Yes, I agree the question of free-will is the crucial question, but it's free-will of a certain kind: post-Judgement free-will. Does free-will exist after the final Judgement?

Yes- unless in this life we hated what contributed to the freeing of the will.

Certainly free will exists after our death. Indeed if we find our life in Christ after our death, then the will becomes increasingly more free in Him and not less so.

This is because free will is seen by us as a freeing of the will in regards to life & death. The will is not a mechanical force which we then use to accomplish whatever we wish- this is truly a debased understanding of what human will is although popular in our day.

Will, according to the Fathers, is an energy within us. It is enslaved by sinful desire but freed in Christ.

As long as a person lives he will desire. Due to the Fall & then sin, the will's desiring power is confused & self-contradictory in regards to good & evil. But still will and desire always remain. To cease willing is to cease existing.

The point then is to begin to free our will in Christ now in this life so that afterwards this ongoing freeing of the will may continue.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

"Why did God create us with the power to reject God and sin?" is " Because God wants to insure free will". ...
Is it because God wants us to choose that state for ourselves?.

St Basil the Great "distinguishes between that which his according to the image, the rationality and free choice (emphasis mine) that humans always have, and that which is according to the likeness, the deiform virtues that we can acquire through participation in Christ by using our freedom to cooperate with the Holy Spirit. [St] Basil notes that God has honored human by enabling them to become fashioners of the divine likeness within themselves." (Introduction to On the Human Condition, St Basil the Great, SVS, p19)

Note that our free will is part of the image of God with which we were created. Without this, we would not be created in the image of God and thus the likeness of God would not be possible for us.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

I agree with Father David that 'free-will' is part of the image of God within us.

If we substitute the word love for free-will we can see that if we ask 'why did God not create us so that we could not fail to love him' then we understand that such a love is not any sort of love we recognise.

Our free-will does not exist on its own, the will is a faculty of our humanity, and when it is free then it naturally turns to love of God. This is why we must have free-will. We cannot be human without it. And we cannot respond to God as He created us to without free will.

Free will is not the possibility of doing what WE want, it is the possibility of willing what is the natural object of our desires. We cannot do that perfectly at present because we are not free, we are like a man with a chain round his ankle. I am a slave to my passions...I want to be free to love God completely.

Peter

[Andrew]

The following from St. Isaac seems relevant here:



I prefer that to 'I don't know'.

In Christ,

John

I agree entirely.